Substantial rises are set for most immigration fees on 1 October 2010, on the basis of the laughable justification that UKBA ‘want to ensure that we can offer a good level of customer service’. They also openly state that the increases are to ‘mitigate against a reduction in income to the Agency’. I’m not sure whether this is a reference to central funding cuts or to the proposed reduction in migrants. Perhaps UKBA feels it needs to maintain its income from fees and the only way to do so is increase the fees for the smaller numbers of migrants they expect?
Examples include:
- Settlement visas from £644 to £750 (apparently they “offer an extremely generous package of benefits to applicants”, which sounds like Time Share speak to me)
- Tier 1 visa from £690 to 750
- Tier 1 in-country from £840 to £850
- Tier 2 visa from £270 to £350
- Tier 2 in-country from £475 to £500
- Tier 4 visa from £199 to £220
- Tier 4 in-country held at £357
- Tier 5 from £128 to £130
- Short term visit visas from £68 to £70
- 2, 5 and 10 year visit visas to £245, £450 and £650 respectively
- Increase in dependent fees to 20-30% of the principal applicant fee
For the full table follow this link (pdf document)
10 responses
I’m not sure what “Restricted” means at the top of each page in the public release.
The second para of the link rather confirms what most think about the charges – an indirect tax by another name on migrants.
Some of the increases are so pitiful one wonders if the increase will even recover the cost of implementation eg.Short term visit visas from £68 to £70″.
Not sure I would want to pay £15,000 for the “Mobile Case working (Premium+)” even if I knew what it meant.
I think it is the van they send round to Russian oligarchs to do mobile biometrics so that the oligarch in question need not be inconvenienced.
Please, tell me why is so worse being a British living in the UK than an European living here in terms of immigration rules and fees?
I need to pay over £800 for my wife’s dependent visa and £1680 for each of my two children over aged (and even so not sure about the response) whereas if I was an european national it would all be free of charge to live here? These high fees just makes Human Rights impossible. Where’s the rights of family unit no matter what their age or financial situation are? If Britain wants to makes its boarder tougher, it’s just gone to the wrong way. Please, leave a comment on that. Cheers.
Thats the nature of the EU Regs.
You can go to another EU country and return after at least six months to benefit from them
Why are “your” children paying £1680 each, surely they are British if your are.
Because I’m a Brazilian born from a british father. Therefore, I’m british by descent, which doesn’t allow me to pass the citizenship on to my children. But anyway, why do we get more benefits being outside the UK? It makes no sense. It should be quite the opposite. Thanks for you reply.
” british by descent, which doesn’t allow me to pass the citizenship on to my children. ”
True if they were born outside the UK, but not true if they were born in UK.
What barriers are there to stopping you utilising the S.Singh route via 6+ months in another EU country?
Yes, they were born abroad. Well, I’ve been reading about the S. Singh route. It’s an option. But lets agree that is not simple to move to another country and start from scratch when you already have a good job and are well settled in a place. And how can I prove after that that I didn’t go to another EU country to benefit from the Singh route? But I think it’s the only alternative. It’s a shame though.
” how can I prove after that, that I didn’t go to another EU country (just) to benefit from the Singh route? ”
Just a correction, you don’t have to – sorry I forget the case name.
Your chidren are over 18?
The 2003 case is SSHD v Akrich (Case C-109/01).
Yes, they are. Both financially dependent on me (sorry for the reply here, there was no space over there.)