A SCOTTISH lawyer has criticised the “eye-watering” fees migrants must pay for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK as part of the UK Government’s “hostile environment”.
John Vassiliou was speaking after he revealed that Iranian couple Mozaffar Saberi and Rezvan Habibimarand faced a bill of almost £20,000 in fees alone for ILR and British citizenship, which did not take account of Home Office rises.
Saberi, 83, and Habibimarand, 73, have four children, 11 grandchildren and a great-grandchild, all of whom were raised in Edinburgh, but had been refused leave to remain in the UK on human rights grounds – a decision the Home Office reversed late on Monday.
READ MORE: Elderly Edinburgh couple 'over the moon' at deportation reverse
Vassiliou – a partner in Edinburgh legal firm McGill & Co – told The National: “These people are being granted visas for human rights reasons and they’re going to have to spend a deposit-on-a-house worth of money over the next 10 years, it’s crazy.
“It certainly seems like a money-making scheme.
“It is really jarring to me as a lawyer when I see the uproar in the media and on Twitter about European people being asked to spend £65 on a document.
“I get where they’re coming from because they never had to pay that before and it’s £65 more they shouldn’t have to spend, but when you set that against the figures you see for non-European citizens, no-one seems to bat an eyelid about those and it’s really jarring seeing the contrast.
“My perception of the cost increases is it’s a punitive measure, part of the overall hostile environment that has been created for migrants. If you factor in the huge expense of getting ILR eventually in this country it may well … put people off coming here in the first place.”
Vassiliou said a major problem was the year-on-year increase in costs trapped people in a 10-year journey to ILR.
“Not everyone has that, like people who come over as spouses under the immigration rules are on a five-year route to ILR, people who are on a working visa are on a five-year route, but those who’ve been granted visas on human rights grounds have to go through 10 years of visa applications to get to that end point.
“Do we need these people to make applications every two-and-a-half years? I don’t think so. I agree in principle with the requirement of maybe one extension application just to check there’s not been any material change in circumstances, but after that is it necessary to keep these people paying and reporting back to the Home Office every two-and-a-half years? I think it’s excessive.”
Usman Aslam, from the Glasgow practice McGlashan MacKay, was also critical of the fees.
He said: “The amount of money that the Home Office charge is disgraceful. A recent analysis showed that they are making up to 800% profit on some applications.
“What business in this country can make that? It is even worse when there is a family with children who would have to cough up around £10,000 just to renew a visa.”
One migrant told The National: “The disparity between the university course fee for EU students and non-EU students is a great elephant in the room.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “When setting fee levels, the Home Office considers a number of factors including the cost of processing the application.
“We keep all Home Office fees under regular review.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here