The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has reviewed the financial requirements for British citizens and settled individuals seeking to bring partners and children to the UK. 

The Government asked the MAC to advise on how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for the Family route that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The MAC declined to recommend a specific income threshold, stating this is a political and ethical decision for the Government to make itself.
 
Crucially, the review rejected the previous government's proposal to raise the MIR to £38,700 to match the Skilled Worker threshold, noting:
“We do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method... [It] is unrelated to the Family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8 of the ECHR).”

Instead, the MAC outlined a range of potential thresholds between £19,000 and £28,000, depending on policy priorities. It also acknowledged the profound negative impacts of the MIR, particularly on children and their mental health, noting how family separation leads to serious emotional distress and long-term harm.

In our submission to the MAC’s call for evidence - one of 36 organisational contributions - we also highlighted the deep harm caused by this policy. The MIR disproportionately affects women, part-time workers, young people and ethnic minorities. We regularly support clients who have been separated from loved ones purely because of income levels. Children grow up without parents, and families suffer immense emotional strain.

The MAC estimated that lowering the threshold from £29,000 to £24,000 would increase net migration by only around 8,000 people, just 1–3% of projected future net migration. The idea that such a small change in migration numbers could justify the government continuing to separatie families is deeply concerning. It highlights the extent to which this policy prioritises numerical targets over family life and common sense.

Fundamentally, we believe family life should not depend on income. The MIR is a cruel and counterproductive policy that damages mental health, undermines integration, and violates the basic right to family unity.

Even politicians with hostile views on immigration, such as (previously Reform) MP Rupert Lowe, have publicly criticised the MIR as “expensive,” “stressful,” and “disrespectful” to British citizens. This cross-party consensus reflects a growing understanding that the MIR is both unfair and unsustainable.

Now that the MAC has confirmed this is a political choice, Labour must act. Reducing the threshold is not enough. The Minimum Income Requirement should be scrapped entirely in favour of a system that respects the right to family life regardless of income.

This month at RAMFEL has been packed with continued resilience from the people we support. From uplifting the story of a young man failed by the system to securing life-changing immigration status for dozens of people, here’s what we’ve been up to.

Romario’s Fight for Citizenship
Romario’s story is one of unimaginable injustice. Born and raised in the UK, he should have always had citizenship. But due to social services’ serious failures, Romario was stranded in Antigua at the age of 14. His dreams of becoming a professional athlete were shattered, and when he returned to the UK at 21, he had no immigration status, no home, and no access to support.
Romario now needs £1,576 to apply for the British citizenship he has always deserved. He isn’t in a position to afford this himself so he’s launched a fundraiser to help him rebuild his life.
Donate here to support Romario

Our ILR Fee Waiver EDM Gathers Momentum
In March, we launched an Early Day Motion (EDM) calling for a fee waiver for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) applications. The cost of applying for ILR- over £3,000 - is locking people out of stability, work, and security.
We’re thrilled to share that 36 MPs have now signed on in support. Every signature helps bring this campaign into the national conversation. If you haven’t yet contacted your MP, you can use our quick online tool to ask them to sign:
 Email your MP here

Case Spotlight – From Disbelief to Stability
Our client Jack*, supported by Weronika on our casework team, was just granted Leave to Remain (LTR), but the journey there was anything but straightforward.
Previously holding LTR, Jack missed a renewal deadline and mistakenly believed he only needed to renew his biometric residence permit. The confusion around the government’s new eVisa system only made things worse. When his disability benefits were stopped due to lack of proof of status, he became homeless and was also later diagnosed with cancer.
Through persistence and legal support, Weronika was able to help Jack secure LTR for a second time. He’s now back in stable accommodation, and we’re continuing to support him through this incredibly difficult time.
*Clients name has been anonymised

​Casework Successes
Behind every number is a person or family who can now live with more certainty and dignity. In May, our casework team achieved the following:

• 19 people granted Leave to Remain
• 6 families granted permanent immigration status
• 5 people granted British citizenship

The UK government’s plan to introduce targeted visa restrictions for nationals from Pakistan, Nigeria and Sri Lanka is a deeply discriminatory and politically motivated move. It also undermines the government’s own position that people should use safe routes if they need to seek protection in the UK. This is exactly what these people have done, and the government responds by demonising and scapegoating them.

We’ve seen this pattern before. When people from a particular country begin using a safe route to claim asylum - because no refugee visa exists - the government moves swiftly to shut that route down. We saw it with Trinidad and Tobago. We saw it with Namibia. Now we’re seeing it again. Rather than expanding pathways to safety, the UK repeatedly reacts by restricting or removing existing routes once people start using them to seek protection. And then, with no sense of irony, it insists that people should "come here legally" and use "safe and regular routes", knowing full well it has closed off nearly all of them.

We know from our work with refugees and migrants that people’s circumstances can change rapidly. A student or worker may face persecution, conflict, or political instability in their home country after arriving in the UK. Others may have already been facing serious harm, and with no refugee visa perhaps secured a student visa as a means of escaping persecution.
​ 
This move amounts to a further erosion of one of the few remaining safe routes to claim asylum. Instead of addressing the appalling delays and failures in the asylum system, the government is doubling down on profiling and exclusion. The targeting of these three specific countries also shamelessly profiles people based on their nationality. Let’s call this what it is: racism.

This announcement is not about so-called ‘abuse’ of the system - it is about scapegoating migrants to score political points in the wake of poor election results. Many who voted for hard-line anti-migrant parties last week did so because both Labour and the Conservatives have moved in that direction. When cruelty becomes consensus, voters who want a tougher stance turn to the extremes.

Right now, we’re watching political parties compete over who can be cruellest to win over a narrow segment of voters - while ignoring the majority who simply want real solutions. After nearly a year in power, this government has focused solely on so-called deterrence and closing down immigration routes. They have not even pretended they’re interested in opening safe routes for refugees to seek sanctuary. Instead of scapegoating migrants, the government must reverse course and shift towards a humane and fair approach to immigration. If they don’t, and they continue normalising this shameless pandering to the far-right, they shouldn’t be surprised if voters continue rejecting them not only for Reform but also for kinder and more compassionate approaches favoured by left-wing parties.

​I am living in this beautiful country England for 23 years.
I was here for the 9/11 Anniversary (2002)
I was here during London bombing which kills 52 people. (2005)
I was here when Usain Bolt from my country Jamaica broke many records at the London Olympics (2012)
I was here when Sir Anthony Blair was Prime Minister.
I was here with no children; I am now a mother of 2 British children.
I was here during some of the toughest snow storms.
Ohhh Yes Sir I was definitely here during Covid-19.
Mr. Prime Minister Sir
Why am I constantly having to renew my leave to remain every 2.5 years on the 10-year route?
Sir, why can't I attend university with my 2.5 years leave to remain?
Sir why do we keep having visa fee hikes,
Sir it was just February 2024 when we saw a massive NHS surcharge fee hike
We have not even recovered yet from that, and now again!
Another visa application fee hike?!
Sir, why am I still under the 10 years route?
Sir Prime Minister when am I going to stop asking why?

This month has been exciting for RAMFEL - from meeting a new ally in Parliament to celebrating a legal victory that is already changing lives. Here’s what we’ve been up to.
​Meeting our local MP – Uma Kumaran
This month, we had the privilege of meeting Uma Kumaran, the MP for Stratford and Bow. Given that RAMFEL’s office is based in Stratford, we see this as an exciting opportunity to work closely with an MP who represents many of the people we support.
During our meeting, we highlighted some of the biggest challenges that refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants face when navigating the UK’s immigration system. This included:

• The repeated and expensive renewals of Leave to Remain applications
• Poor decision-making in family reunion cases for people in conflict zones
• The urgent need for a fee waiver for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) applications, so that people are not priced out of securing permanent immigration status

Uma and her team were shocked by many of these realities. We look forward to working with her in the future.

Bereaved Partner Concession – Our First Fee Waiver Granted
Last year, RAMFEL won a landmark legal battle that forced the government to introduce a fee waiver for bereaved partners. This month, we saw the first approval granted using this waiver – saving a grieving widow, who had cared for her husband until his passing, thousands of pounds and securing her immigration status.
This victory is more than just a financial win; it provides stability and security for a grieving widow who otherwise might have faced losing her immigration status. It is also a testament to how our legal work has a direct and life-changing impact on the people we support.
Our new campaign - Indefinite Leave to Remain Fee Waiver
We’re excited to share that we have launched an Early Day Motion  (EDM) calling for a fee waiver for ILR applications - and we already have 26 MPs from 7 parties signed on in support!
An EDM is a tool MPs use to highlight pressing issues, and it helps organisations like RAMFEL identify which MPs are aligned with the change we want to see. Every MP who signs is helping to bring the need for an ILR fee waiver into the political conversation. This campaign is just beginning, and we’ll keep pushing until real change happens.
Casework Success
As well as our campaigning work, this month our casework team have achieved huge amounts for our clients. In March, we secured: 

• 18 people permanent immigration status
• 6 people British citizenship
• 40 people Leave to Remain

We welcome The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s (ICIBI) latest report on the Home Office’s management of fee waiver applications. The Home Office’s acceptance of most of the recommendations is a step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done to ensure fee waivers are accessible to those who need them.
​
RAMFEL submitted evidence to this consultation, drawing on our extensive experience in applying for fee waivers to identify persistent problems within the system. We proposed a series of recommendations, including a streamlined process for Leave to Remain (LTR) applications by ‘passporting’ some applicants, introducing fee waivers for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) applications, and implementing a context-specific approach to out-of-country fee waiver applications.

The inspection extensively revealed data breaches related to Equifax checks, exposing the government’s potentially unlawful storage and retention of personal data of fee waiver applicants' and third parties with no connection to the applicant. RAMFEL has long been aware that unsuspecting British citizens data was being collected in these checks, an issue that was recently covered in The Guardian. This raises significant concerns about the Home Office’s approach to data protection. While they have ceased contracting Equifax, we have little confidence switching to a new provider, Experian, will significantly alter their approach.

The report rightly calls for more stakeholder engagement in overseas entry clearance applications as none currently exists, and highlights the worryingly poor decision making in this team. The inspection found that ‘no routine quality assurance checks of overseas fee waiver decisions had taken place since 2022’.  However, it fails to acknowledge that these poor decisions may be partly due to the unrealistic evidentiary requirements placed on overseas applicants, such as the need for them to provide tenancy agreements - documentation that is often unavailable to applicants from conflict zones.

The report found that approximately 70% of all applications within their sample of 144, required a ‘write out’ for further information – another issue RAMFEL has long been aware of. This is a clear indicator of a broken system and wasted resources. While the ICIBI recommends embedding ‘write outs’ into Home Office caseworkers’ performance measures, we believe this does not address the real problem: the Home Office’s seeming inability to recognise just how unaffordable visa applications now are.

The cost of LTR applications has skyrocketed in recent years, now standing at a staggering £3,845.50 per adult applicant. The rapid increases in application fees over the past few years make it painfully obvious that for many people, especially those on lower incomes or receiving in-work benefits, this cost is simply unaffordable. Those on Universal Credit, means-tested benefits, asylum support, or local authority assistance are though still required to submit extensive financial evidence supporting fee waiver applications. Despite this, the Home Office routinely requests additional and often unnecessary further evidence, or indeed requests evidence that has already been provided. This is not only a waste of Home Office time but also an unfair burden on those who can least afford it.

Since January 2023, RAMFEL received 24 further information requests for LTR fee waivers, with the Home Office only refusing one of these applications after the extra evidence was provided. One of these requests was to explain a 40p transaction. Based on this success rate, it is likely that most if not all, of these fee waivers could have been processed without requiring additional evidence. We firmly believe that the system we proposed in our submission—automatically ‘passporting’ certain applicants—should be implemented immediately to improve government efficiency and minimise waste.

It is unfortunate that the ICIBI did not address the lack of a fee waiver for ILR applications. With the recent increase in fees scheduled for April 2025, ILR fees will cost £3,029.00. This is a serious financial barrier for families trying to secure their future in the UK. Many applicants are forced into a cycle of applying for fee waivers indefinitely because they cannot afford to settle permanently, which ultimately increases the work of the Home Office fee waiver teams. Yesterday, an Early Day Motion was tabled calling for the introduction of an ILR fee waiver, and already 13 MPs have signed this.

In conclusion, while the ICIBI’s report highlights several critical issues within the Home Office’s fee waiver system, we feel it does not address some of the fundamental flaws driving these problems. This though may not have been the ICIBI’s mandate, and ultimately the Home Office itself has to decide whether it wishes to improve the fee waiver application process.

We urge the Government to take meaningful action by implementing the following:

• Streamline LTR Fee Waiver Process: The fee waiver process should be simplified by automatically passporting individuals on Universal Credit or disability benefits, as well as those in NASS accommodation or under section 17 of the Children’s Act. This would also greatly minimise the risk of non-consensual data collection and retention as part of Equifax and Experian checks.
• Introduce Fee Waivers for ILR Applications: Fee waivers for ILR applications are needed to ensure vulnerable individuals are not priced out of securing permanent status after completing their residential “qualifying periods”.
• Context-Specific Approach for OOC Fee Waiver Applications: The Home Office needs to adopt a more flexible, transparent approach for OOC fee waivers, especially for applicants from conflict zones where UK-centric documents may not exist. Clear guidelines should be provided on acceptable alternative evidence.

 

The Government has announced it is terminating its contract with Stay Belvedere Hotels (SBHL), which manages 51 hotels housing asylum seekers, due to performance concerns. However, rather than implementing real change, the government has handed the contract to the firm responsible for managing the Bibby Stockholm barge - an accommodation site so inadequate and unsafe that it has now been closed.

Bibby Stockholm was widely condemned for its appalling conditions, including serious fire safety risks, poor food provision, and an outbreak of deadly bacteria in the water supply. There were multiple mental health crises among those housed on the barge, including a tragic suspected suicide. Its closure was an admission of failure - yet instead of learning from this, the government is now entrusting the same company with managing asylum accommodation in replacement of SBHL.

At the start of the year, we delivered a petition to No. 10 Downing Street and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, calling for an end to the use of hotels as asylum accommodation. With over 500 signatures, our message was clear: the current system is failing people in need, and urgent change is required. This is not the change our supporters called for!

Handing over contracts from SBHL to another private contractor does not amount to meaningful reform.

The government must stop relying on for-profit companies to provide accommodation and properly fund and support local authorities to house people in our communities. The billions of pounds should be spent on protecting refugees and strengthening public services for everyone, rather than funneling it into failing private contracts.
​
The government needs to move beyond short term fixes, and start delivering real solutions. Asylum seekers deserve safe, dignified housing - not a never-ending cycle of failed providers and broken promises.

When I applied for the Legal Casework Volunteer opportunity at RAMFEL, I never imagined how transformative this experience would be. I was drawn to this opportunity as a result of my lived experience, academic interests and passion for human rights.

Originally, I had thought that my role might be more observational rather than hands-on. I believed that, as a volunteer, I would primarily assist with minor tasks rather than engaging directly with clients and casework. However, my experience at RAMFEL far exceeded my expectations.

What I learned
I was not only learning, shadowing and being guided by the team here, but as a volunteer, I was also actively contributing to the incredible work they are doing. 
To highlight a few incredible opportunities, I had as a volunteer, which is by no means an extensive list, I: 

• visited the Houses of Parliament for a roundtable hosted by RAMFEL which marked the one-year anniversary of the Sudan conflict and called for the urgent need for safe routes for those affected by the conflict and with clear family ties in the UK; 
  
• provided casework support to the Rough Sleeping team, working on legal research, drafting immigration applications and hosting initial appointments; 
  
• assisted with the eVisa Drop In clinics, travelling across London to work with local councils and charities to support their clients; and
  
• volunteered in RAMFEL’s Foodbank, providing food and resources to the local community, as well as drop in immigration and destitution advice and English classes. 

What I’ll take forward
At RAMFEL, I had the opportunity to apply my knowledge, skills and passions in real-world situations. Through these experiences, I gained a deeper appreciation for the complexities of the immigration system.

One of the most striking aspects was the level of responsibility I was given as a volunteer. Instead of simply observing, I was actively contributing to casework and client support. This hands-on experience was invaluable. I was also struck by the supportive and inclusive team culture. My contributions were recognised, my ideas were heard, and I was encouraged to take on new challenges.

Seeing firsthand how the immigration system impacts real people has deepened my commitment to advocacy. RAMFEL’s work, rooted in lived experience, fights for justice in a system that often feels dehumanising. My time here has shown me that even small contributions can drive meaningful change.
​
Volunteering at RAMFEL has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my career. Whether you're an aspiring lawyer or simply want to make a difference, I highly recommend getting involved in this vital work.

 TV series, films, books and podcasts, have an amazing power to influence audiences, make them question the world we live in, and change perceptions. Maybe this is because, through these mediums we can be told stories about real human beings, which cut through attention-grabbing headlines and soulless statistics. Stories help us relate to people, feel empathy and sometime even help us to see the world in a different light.

This is why I was intrigued by Channel 4’s new series ‘Go Back To Where You Came From’, which is billed as a series challenging how British people feel about asylum seekers and migration.  The 4-part series follows six Brits with views about immigration from both sides of the divide – some highly sympathetic, and some highly critical (and unashamedly racist) – as they travel along routes frequently taken by refugees to reach the UK. In the first episode, we watch the Brits as they start their travels in either Raqqa, Syria or Mogadishu, Somalia.

Having watched the first episode of the series last week, I came away feeling saddened and frustrated. After the second episode aired yesterday, I want to explain why:

Considering that immigration is one of the most divisive and discussed topics in the UK at the moment, there has been a complete absence of voices from migrants themselves in mainstream  media. As a result, there is very little to challenge and question the constant dehumanising rhetoric we hear and read in news-cycles and in statements from politicians. How incredible would it be if Channel 4 had given this platform to migrants themselves, to share their stories, perspectives and opinions. 

Sadly, Channel 4 decided to focus on the perspective of British tourists (albeit tourists giddy with glee at insulting the places they were visiting). Perhaps Channel 4 felt that using Brits to tell the story would be the only way to get the British public interested and reach the viewing figures that could actually have an impact on public discourse. Perhaps they think that Brits think they can only relate to fellow Brits? And, realistically, maybe they are right? But by creating this series Channel 4 are giving credence to that attitude – when I think they should be challenging it.

As we follow the Brits on their journey, it makes uncomfortable, voyeuristic viewing. While episode one some moments when the Brits sat down and talked with the residents of Mogadishu and Raqqa, these moments were rare and the focus remained on the Brits. A large amount of the episode was spent from inside armoured 4x4 vehicles as the Brits ogled at their surroundings. This episode did very little to amplify voices of migrants themselves, and rather continued to recycle the same ‘us vs them’ narrative that we are constantly faced with in mainstream media.

Episode two, which aired last night, was much the same. Although there was slightly less time spent inside armoured vehicles, the focus remained unchanged—more gawking at their surroundings, more condescending descriptions of refugee camps, and only a handful of conversations with refugees themselves. These interactions felt secondary at best, and at worst, like a token gesture to create the illusion of balance.

I would say to anyone who watched the first two episodes, to keep watching, let’s see how it unfolds. But also, to seek out films, series, books and podcasts that tell stories of migration from the perspectives of the migrants and refugees themselves – of their experiences, opinions and hopes for the future. Watch and listen to them, and tell your friends and family about them. I strongly feel that it is these stories, from the people who have actually faced migration themselves, have the power to shift perceptions and make a huge change.

Below I have listed some places to start looking:

Films:
• The Story of Souleymane (2024) directed by Boris Lojkine
• Flee (2021) directed by Jonas Poher Rasmussen
• The Swimmers (2022) directed by Sally El Hosaini
• Limbo (2020) directed by Ben Sharrock

Documentaries:
• Eye Investigations Dark Waters: Africa’s Deadliest Migration Route (2024). An investigation by BBC Eye Africa reporter Mame Cheikh Mbaye
• For Sama, directed by Waad Al-Kateeb and Edward Watts
Explore the London Migration Film Festival past programmes for lots more films and documentaries: https://www.migrationcollective.com/lmff-2024 

Books:
• Little Warrior by Giuseppe Catozzela
• The Refugees by Viet Thanh Nguyen
• The Last Girl by Nadia Murad
• The Beekeeper of Alleppo by Christy Lefteri
• Asylum Speakers book, collated by Jaz O’Hara 

There are lots more books suggested by the International Rescue Committee in this article: https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/12-essential-books-about-refugee-experiences 

Podcasts:
• Refugee Stories, produced by Jessica Stone
• Asylum Speakers podcast, produced by Jaz O’Hara
• UNHCR Forced to Flee, produced by Waqas Chughtai and Barney Thompson

Last week, the Labour government introduced the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. While the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act and elements of the Illegal Migration Act (IMA) is a necessary and welcome step, this Bill fails to address the issues at the heart of the UK’s asylum system. In fact, it entrenches many of the same harmful policies introduced by the previous government.

This Bill retains the expands detention powers introduced by the IMA as well as the weakened protections for survivors of modern slavery. It also continues to render asylum and human rights claims automatically inadmissible from people fleeing countries such as Albania, Georgia, and India. Instead of delivering real reform, it doubles down on a system designed to punish and exclude.

The government is prioritising border enforcement over human lives. With this new Bill people seeking safety will face even greater criminalisation, with increased surveillance, phone seizures, expanded data access, and harsher penalties. Those who attempt to assist asylum seekers face up to 14 years in prison.

Yet, despite all these punitive measures, the government has offered no safe routes for people fleeing war and persecution to seek refuge in the UK. There are no new humanitarian visas, no improved resettlement schemes, and no meaningful commitments to international protection. There is as well no expansion of the existing family reunion rules. Instead, the focus remains on so-called deterrence, detention, and deportation, showing no sign of change since the previous Conservative government.

The refusal to repeal barriers preventing victims of trafficking from accessing support and the continued detention of children further exposes this Bill for what it truly is: an extension of the Hostile Environment under a different name. Whether a Labour or Conservative government, the obsession with militarising the border and criminalising those fleeing persecution, whilst steadfastly refusing to acknowledge why people take dangerous journeys, means nothing substantive will change. More lives will be lost and people in need will continue being exploited, both in the UK and on their journeys here.

This approach is not only inhumane, but fundamentally counterproductive. The government cannot claim to be fixing the asylum system while making it even more dangerous and inaccessible. Until there is a real commitment to safe routes, fair asylum processes, and respect for international law, this Bill will only serve to create more suffering and more chaos.