MM & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

This Court allowed the Secretary of State's appeals from Blake J. The Court held that the July 2012 amendments to the Immigration Rules (Appendix FM) introducing a Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) for sponsors of non-EEA partners pursue legitimate public aims (protecting the economic well‑being of the United Kingdom and promoting integration), are rationally connected to those aims and fall within the margin of executive judgment in social and economic policy.

The Court rejected the contention that the Rules were irrational at common law or that the general exclusion of third‑party support and the rules excluding the non‑EEA partner's prospective earnings for the first 30 months were, in principle, unlawful. The Court held that the equality/Article 14 effects identified (indirect discrimination affecting some national groups and women) were recognised and could be justified as proportionate to the legitimate aims. The Court also held that section 55 BCIA 2009 (duty to have regard to the welfare of children) was not breached by the Rules and that the availability of an exceptional‑circumstances procedure in guidance did not render the Rules unlawful.

Background and nature of the claim

• The claimants (MM, a refugee with leave to remain; Abdul Majid and Shabana Javed, British citizens) sought judicial review of changes to the Immigration Rules, laid on 13 June 2012 and effective 9 July 2012, which impose a Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) for UK partners who wish to sponsor non‑EEA partners to enter and reside in the UK (Appendix FM, notably E‑ECP.3.1 and related provisions).
• Relief sought: in principle challenge to the lawfulness of the MIR on human rights and common law grounds (Article 8 ECHR; Article 14 read with Article 8; irrationality); a contention that the Rules fail to discharge the section 55 BCIA 2009 duty towards children; and a cross‑appeal point about the application of the parent provisions in E‑ECPT.2.3(b)(ii)–(iii).

Procedural posture

The claimants had succeeded before Blake J who held the MIR constituted a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights on assumed facts (and refused declarations on certain matters). The Secretary of State appealed. The Court of Appeal heard detailed evidence about policy development and equality assessments and considered domestic and Strasbourg authority on Article 8 proportionality and the proper legal status of the Immigration Rules.

Issues framed by the Court

1. Whether the MIR are compatible with Article 8 ECHR;
2. Whether, taken with Article 8, the MIR are justified despite their indirect discriminatory effects engaging Article 14;
3. Whether particular rule features (exclusion of third‑party support, disregarding prospective earnings for 30 months, savings threshold and 30‑month projection) were irrational at common law;
4. Whether the Secretary of State failed to discharge the duty in section 55 BCIA 2009 in framing the Rules;
5. What role the exceptional‑circumstances guidance plays in assessing compatibility; and
6. Cross‑appeal challenge to E‑ECPT.2.3(b)(ii)/(iii) on parent‑of‑child provisions.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions

• The Court accepted the SSHD's identified legitimate aims: avoiding burdens on the taxpayer and promoting integration. The Attorney’s policy development, impact assessment and Migration Advisory Committee material provided a rational evidential basis for the chosen MIR. The Court gave appropriate weight to the executive's margin of judgment in economic and social strategy.
• Applying the established proportionality framework (as discussed in Huang, Quila and related authority), the Court concluded that the MIR are rationally connected to the aims, are not inherently disproportionate, and are not irrational at common law. The Court refused to substitute its view for a democratically accountable executive so long as the measures are not inherently unjustified or arbitrary.
• The Court held that the general exclusion of third‑party support and the rule excluding the non‑EEA partner's prospective earnings for the first 30 months were policy choices open to the SSHD based on operational and predictability considerations; those choices were not irrational.
• Indirect discriminatory effects were acknowledged but the Court held they were justified because the measures pursue legitimate aims and the relationship of means to aim was proportionate; differential impact did not render the Rules unlawful.
• Section 55 BCIA 2009 did not require a different outcome. Appendix FM expressly states that child welfare has been taken into account; the Rules do not preclude case‑by‑case consideration and the parent provisions (E‑ECPT) provide different, less onerous financial tests where appropriate.
• The exceptional‑circumstances guidance and the Secretary of State’s residual discretion do not have to cure every individual outcome to validate an overall lawful rule‑set; given the Court’s conclusion that the Rules are not inherently unlawful there was no need to decide whether the guidance formed a "complete code".
• The application for permission to cross‑appeal by Mr Majid (challenge to E‑ECPT.2.3(b)(ii)/(iii)) failed: the Rules reasonably distinguish different family circumstances and do not breach section 55 or Article 8 in principle.

Outcome: the Court allowed the Secretary of State's appeals, set aside the relevant part of Blake J's order, and refused Mr Majid permission to cross‑appeal.

Appeal allowed. The Court held that the July 2012 changes to the Immigration Rules (Appendix FM MIR) pursue legitimate aims (protecting the economic well‑being of the UK and promoting integration), are rationally connected to those aims and are not, in principle, disproportionate or irrational. Indirect discriminatory effects were recognised but objectively justified; section 55 BCIA 2009 did not render the Rules unlawful; and the parent‑of‑child cross‑appeal was refused.

These appeals were heard in the Court of Appeal from the High Court (Queen's Bench Division, Blake J) CO85882012. Blake J had held on assumed facts that the MIR were a disproportionate interference with Article 8 but refused declaratory relief; the Secretary of State appealed. This Court allowed the appeals ([2014] EWCA Civ 985) and set aside paragraph 1 of Blake J’s order. Mr Majid’s application for permission to cross‑appeal was refused.