Foreign spouses must learn English before moving to Britain, U.K. Supreme Court rules

Britain’s high court has unanimously rejected an appeal from two women challenging a law requiring foreign spouses to learn English before moving to the U.K.

The two women, Saiqa Bibi and Saffana Ali, had taken aim at a 5-year-old immigration rule which says that the foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen must pass an English language competence test before relocating to the U.K.

Both of their husbands live abroad, the woman argued, and stood little chance of being allowed to move to the U.K. since they reside far from any of the government’s approved test centers and lack the computer skills required for the exam.

Yet while the women claimed the law is “unreasonable, disproportionate and discriminatory,” the five-judge panel of Britain’s Supreme Court said Wednesday that it won’t hear their challenge since the rule doesn’t constitute violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The appellants argue that the Rule is an unjustifiable interference with the right to respect for private and family life, protected by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”); or that it is unjustifiably discriminatory in securing the enjoyment of that right, contrary to article 14 of the ECH, or that it is irrational and therefore unlawful on common law principles,” Lady Hale of the court acknowledged in Wednesday’s ruling.

“However, direct discrimination, even on grounds of nationality, is capable of justification under article 14,” the judge added.

Lord Neuberger, the president of the Supreme Court, admitted that the guidance “seems bound to result in the infringement of article 8 rights in individual cases,” but nevertheless failed to find the rule disproportionate.

“The government may need to take further steps toward providing opportunities for spouses and partners to meet the requirement, or may need to amend its guidance,” added Lord Hodge.

Rosie Brighouse, a legal officer for human rights campaigners Liberty, described the ruling to reporters as “a careful, nuanced judgment from the U.K. Supreme Court.”

“While we are disappointed the court does not agree with us on the rule’s discriminatory effect, we welcome its recognition that the Home Secretary’s harsh and unreasonable guidance puts many couples in an impossible situation, and may well be unlawful,” she said, the Belfast Telegraph reported. “The court has not yet had its final say — and we know many families will wait anxiously for its ultimate decision.”