Legal Opinion: Analysis of the Migration Advisory Committee (‘MAC’) 2025 Report on the Minimum Income Requirement
On 10th June 2025, the MAC published its long awaited review of the Minimum Income Requirement (‘MIR’) applicable to UK family migration routes, particularly the spouse/partner route under Appendix FM of the UK Immigration Rules. The report responds to Government proposals to increase the MIR to £38,700 per annum, a move that has provoked widespread concerns from legal practitioners, migrants and the wider British public who intend to live with their non-British partner in the UK.
This legal opinion analyses the MAC’s findings and recommendations in light of the current legal framework, human rights obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) and recent immigration policy trends.
1. Legal Context: The Purpose and Impact of the MIR
The MIR was introduced in 2012 to ensure that non-UK family members can be supported by their UK sponsoring family member. The policy originally set the threshold at £18,600, rising with each additional non-British dependent child. In April 2024, the Government increased the MIR substantially to £29,000, with plans to raise it further to £38,700 in line with the threshold of the Skilled Worker route.
From a legal standpoint, this shift represents a significant adjustment of the family migration route. The MIR is not merely an administrative hurdle; it operates as a substantive eligibility criteria, often determinative of whether family life in the UK is even possible.
2. MAC’s Key Findings and Recommendations
The MAC’s report rejects the proposed alignment with the Skilled Worker route because this would exclude approximately 63% of the UK workforce to sponsor their partner and create undue barriers for family unity. Instead, the MAC recommended that the MIR should fall within a range of £19,000 to £28,000, with a preferred narrower banding of £23,000 to £25,000. This reflects a fair compromise between supporting family unity and state economic wellbeing.
Key MAC recommendations:
Set the MIR at £23,000 to £25,000 (within a broader £19,000 to £28,000 range): The MAC rejected aligning the MIR with the Skilled Worker threshold (£38,700), noting that this would disproportionately affect lower-income British sponsoring partners, especially women, younger applicants an those in part-time or caring roles. From the perspective of Article 8 of the ECHR, this recommended threshold strikes a better balance between preventing reliance on public funds and upholding the right to family life. It is also grounded in economic modelling showing a significantly lower exclusion rate at this level.
Reject the £38,700 proposal (Skilled Worker threshold): The MAC considered that the MIR should not mirror the Skilled Worker route threshold because family migration is distinct in law and purpose. Using a threshold of £38,700 would exclude approximately 63% of British sponsoring their family members. This may make the rules vulnerable to judicial review under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Include foreign partner’s income (e.g., job offers, employment abroad) for Entry Clearance: Currently, only the British sponsoring family member’s income can be counted towards the MIR for Entry Clearance. This restriction ignores real earning potential and often penalises qualified professionals. Including the applying non-British partner would reflect actual family resources and reduce discriminatory impacts. It aligns with principles of fairness and proportionality.
Abolish the 6 months UK income rule: Under the current policy, British sponsoring partners must show income earned for at least 6 months. This disadvantages British citizens returning with a foreign partner, particularly after time abroad. The MAC concluded that it is a rigid and unjustified obstacle, incompatible with the rights of British citizens and settled persons to reside with family.
Expand eligible income sources: The MAC supports counting varied income sources such as remote/online work, self-employment, unearned income and savings in flexible formats. This shift would help reflect real household financial capacity and reduce refusal rates based on artificial income tests.
Simplify and reform the Adequate Maintenance route: The current adequate maintenance test is complex, opaque and relies on outdated benefits such as Income Support. The MAC recommends removing the financial test but retaining housing adequacy requirement, using Universal Credit as a modern baseline and clearer guidance with fewer calculations.
Conduct regular reviews and improve data collection: The MAC found significant gaps in data on family migration refusals, appeals and income profiles. The MAC recommends annual reviews of the MIR (indexed or inflation-adjusted), more granular administrative data collection and transparency. This would support evidence-based policy and reduces arbitrariness.
Key Legal implications of this Recommendation:
Proportionality under Article 8 of the ECHR: The MAC expressly recognises that an excessively high MIR may disproportionately interfere with the right to family life, particularly where a British citizen or settled person is unable to meet the threshold due to caring responsibilities, regional labour market disparities or part-time work. The MAC’s position supports the principle established in R (MM (Lebanon)) v SSHD [2017] UKSC 10, which held that the MIR was lawful in principle but must be applied with due regard to individual circumstances and alternative sources of support.
Fiscal Neutrality vs Human Cost: While the Government argues that a high MIR ensures that migrants do not become a “burden on the State”, the MAC counters that the threshold must strike a fair balance between fiscal impact and family unity. Their recommendation appears to adopt a human-centred approach advocating for a realistic income level that supports financial independence without unjustifiably excluding lower-income sponsors.
No Requirement for 6 Months of UK Income: The MAC also rejects the policy, often applied in practice, that overseas British family sponsors must work in the UK for 6 months before applying. Legally, this could be considered disproportionate and inflexible, particularly for UK family sponsors returning to the UK with pre-arranged employment.
3. Practical and Procedural Concerns
For legal practitioners, the current MIR creates significant legal complexity in the following areas:
Calculation of Income under Appendix FM-SE remains technical and unforgiving. Any increase in the threshold will compound the risk of refusal for minor documentary or arithmetic errors.
Applicants Relying on Self-Employment, Contract Work or Fluctuating Income already face difficulty demonstrating financial eligibility.
The lack of Discretionary or Alternative Assessment Routes except in exceptional circumstances undermines the Home Office’s ability to consider the totality of an applicant’s circumstances which may render the MIR unlawfully rigid.
The MAC’s proposal for regular, indexed reviews of the MIR would bring much needed predictability and accountability to a migration route that currently shifts without consultation or clear evidentiary basis.
4. Legal Risks of a £38,700 Threshold
Should the Home Office press ahead with its plan to raise the MIR to £38,700, serious legal consequences may follow:
Increased Litigation Under Article 8 ECHR, especially where British citizens, their partner and their children are indefinitely separated from family members abroad.
Potential Breach of the UK’s Obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly the duty to give primary consideration to a child’s best interests.
The risk that the policy will be struck down or narrowed by the UK’s courts or challenged through the Strasbourg system.
In practical terms, a £38,700 threshold would exclude around 50% of UK workers from sponsoring their partner which is a result that is politically untenable and legally unjustifiable. More alarmingly, the MAC’s data show that such a threshold would exclude approximately 63% of UK employees. Therefore, the exclusion rate is higher that what was originally stated.
Conclusion and Professional Opinion
As a regulated UK immigration law firm, our view is that the MAC’s recommendations represent a measured, legally coherent response to a complex policy question. They reflect a genuine attempt to balance the UK’s sovereign interest in managing migration with the fundamental rights of individuals and families under both domestic and international law. More importantly, they offer a balanced, pragmatic approach, one that aims to preserve family unity without compromising economic integrity.
Unless the Home Office adopts a more proportionate and evidence-based approach to the MIR, the risk of systemic exclusion, inconsistent decision-making and human rights violations will only grow.
At Noble Rose Immigration Service, we are closely monitoring the Government’s response to the MAC’s report. We continue to advise and represent individuals and families affected by the MIR, offering both strategic legal advice and robust legal representation in immigration matters.
Contact Us Now for tailored immigration legal advice and representation if the MIR affects your family’s future in the UK.
#UKImmigration #ImmigrationLaw #UKVisa #UKFamilyVisa #UKSpouseVisa #UKPartnerVisa #UKImmigrationLawyer #UKImmigrationService #UKImmigrationLegalService #MinimumIncomeRequirement #MACReport #FamilyMigration #UKImmigrationRules #Article8ECHR #ImmigrationAdviceAuthority #IAARegulated #UKFamilyMigrationUpdate #ExperLegalOpinion