Immigrationboards.com

In a rather unexpected and flawed decision from 2 very experienced, and I will say reasonably fair judges of the Upper Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal ruled that an appeal in Marriage of convenience cases, will be out-Country and not In country.

This judgement is troubling in many many respect, as it proceeds on the basis that the appellant will need to discharge a burden that was previously on the Secretary of State.

It also proceeds on the basis that the Secretary of State is right, and that an appellant is wrong, without any due legal process.

Ahmed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEA/s 10 appeal rights: effect (IJR) [2015] UKUT 436 (IAC) (24 July 2015)

This case unsettling the position further I'm afraid.

I have in the past advised applicants not to take up invitations to attend 'marriage interviews' following from EEA applications, were ammunition appeared easy gathered. The Marriage of Convenience indicators are often unfair on newly weds, especially those from differing backgrounds.

el patron wrote:This case unsettling the position further I'm afraid.

I have in the past advised applicants not to take up invitations to attend 'marriage interviews' following from EEA applications, were ammunition appeared easy gathered. The Marriage of Convenience indicators are often unfair on newly weds, especially those from differing backgrounds.

Well the interviews are not only confined to newly weds, but also people who apply for Retention of residence following divorce, and in some cases, people who are applying for Permanent Residence.

I believe the marriage interview is a complete fiasco, I dealt with someone who was refused, because he and his wife mistook the day they had their first kiss, or the last time the guy prayed, questions that will almost certainly lead to an inconsistent answers.

The problem with refusing to attend the interview, is that they sometimes treat the application as undecided and refuse to issue a right of appeal.

The system is so flawed, that it will be best if in some cases, people refuse to attend interviews.

At the appeal of the guy who gave different recollection of his first kiss, the HOPO conceded within 15 minutes, after the asked the guy and his wife fair questions, like wha it they had for dinner last night, what is their hobbies, what did they gave each other for their last birthdays and the one before, what are the names of their siblings , if they have any and the names of their in laws.

The HOPO simply apologise for the inconvenience , and made a concession, after suggesting at first that the pregnancy may not be by the guy.

The system is utter shambles, and the courts are not helping the situation.

Hello Obie, can you please get in touch with me please with regards to my PR application. Need sound advice with regards to this, thanks a great deal. Naijablessed

Naijablessed wrote:Hello Obie, can you please get in touch with me please with regards to my PR application. Need sound advice with regards to this, thanks a great deal. Naijablessed

How is your case related to this thread.

Not sure PR will be affected..

Well i still dont get I have tried following the links you posted and all i can see is that the applicant has used his right of appeals in country... correct me if im wrong!!
Is it a new law that that affects eea family members ?

Thankfully earlier this month, Lord Justice Sales apparently granted permission to appeal Bilal Ahmed to the Court of Appeal. Hope it will be a good outcome.

rosebead wrote:Thankfully earlier this month, Lord Justice Sales apparently granted permission to appeal Bilal Ahmed to the Court of Appeal. Hope it will be a good outcome.

Have you got the case citation. That is an interesting development. I always thought Ahmed was not good law and will not stand the test of time, if there is any integrity left in the British judiciary system.

It was tweeted by Zane Malik under Elspeth Guild's article on this issue.

Ok. Glad Storey is gone now. Hopefully the tribunal will be purged of these so called servant of the law, whose roles are supposed to uphold the law.