Arrested at wedding despite permission

avjones wrote:Start with the notices for detention. What reasons are given?

Is removal imminent? Have removal directions been set, or a "removal window" notified to him?

In the first letter they said removal is imminent
And they would not remove him before the 5th of April and then for three month they could remove him.
at the bail hearing they said they don't know where to take him cause he was in Germany and in Swiss as a refugee. The homeofficer in the court said it's unlikely to get him back to gambia

It is now clear that they arrested him. because they believe it's a sham marriage.

How on earth can I prove that it's not and how on earth do they not have to prove that it is a sham?

I know it's a crime to enter illegal. Yet he did not harm anyone one not did he leech the system.
He is in my house always and when he has a work permit he worked and then came home and never even want to club or party. We are always together.
so I think the harm he caused the country by entering illegal is not as big as the emotional harm they have done to me by arresting him at my wedding

It's still a crime. You can't expect to just ride off into a fluffy pink sunset after the illegal acts and lies you have both committed.

Quoted from earlier post.

Zimsparta wrote:I am a German National living in UK since 2004
I did not apply for a permanent residence
My husband is Gambian
We met online in August 2014.

He was an asylum seeker who came through Libya, Lampedusa, Swiss to Germany.
We chatted, skyped and phoned all the time until I went to see him in Germany in October.
After three weeks i went back home and struggled to be without him.

I Looked into going back to Germany but feel at home here now. Have a mortgage and my son goes to Uni here.
Went back in November for 4 or 5 weeks and did not wanna leave without him.
I Went home and two days later he followed by train.
He managed to enter illegal.
Came to my house before xmas 2014
We have proof of address since feb 2015
in May 15 we got married by double proxy.
Applied for residence card in August.
Got rejected in January.

Did your prospective husband apply for asylum in Germany? Does he has asylum status in Germany? What are his grounds for seeking asylum?

To a disinterested person, it seems that the marriage was being done to legalise his stay in the UK and for no other reason. What evidence have you provided to the Home Office that that is not the case?

The European Council decision of 19th February 2016 states, inter alia,

In accordance with Union law, Member States are able to take action to...address cases of contracting or maintaining marriages of convenience with third country nationals for the purpose of making use of free movement as a route for regularising unlawful stay in a Member State...

secret.simon wrote:Quoted from earlier post.

Zimsparta wrote:I am a German National living in UK since 2004
I did not apply for a permanent residence
My husband is Gambian
We met online in August 2014.

He was an asylum seeker who came through Libya, Lampedusa, Swiss to Germany.
We chatted, skyped and phoned all the time until I went to see him in Germany in October.
After three weeks i went back home and struggled to be without him.

I Looked into going back to Germany but feel at home here now. Have a mortgage and my son goes to Uni here.
Went back in November for 4 or 5 weeks and did not wanna leave without him.
I Went home and two days later he followed by train.
He managed to enter illegal.
Came to my house before xmas 2014
We have proof of address since feb 2015
in May 15 we got married by double proxy.
Applied for residence card in August.
Got rejected in January.

Did your prospective husband apply for asylum in Germany? Does he has asylum status in Germany? What are his grounds for seeking asylum?

To a disinterested person, it seems that the marriage was being done to legalise his stay in the UK and for no other reason. What evidence have you provided to the Home Office that that is not the case?

Of course I want him to be here legally. Who would not want the one they love to be with them without worrying about losing the person any time. I have sent utility bills and also a letter from fertility clinic that we have visited together because we want children but I struggle to call pregnant. I have submitted photos of us in daily common activities. In bed and with my son and his girl at Xmas.
How else could I prove a genuine relationship.
yes we lied because we don't wanna lose each other and we're scared of getting accused of fame relationship when they know we met online.

Yes he came here because of me. He would have preferred for me to come to Germany which is a much much better country and a better option for him. He did not dream.if living in uk.

I did not wanna go cause my son is here.
in Germany the benefits are far better and medical treatment, housing, space. Everything. A family gets th we timed more in child benefits than the English
now don't tell me to go back.
I have a mortgage here. Invested all my money here. I m not a leecher. People do stupid things out of love. It's not as we killed somebody.
His asylum case in Germany was still in appeal.
He is quite handsome and can have any girl. He could have got a girl in Germany and be safe. He took a big risk to come for me and we made mistakes but it was not to gain any benefits or to hurt anyone. It was for us to be together
so if you wanna judge me on that ! Fine!!
Still he has the legal right to get married but they abused their power and stopped the marriage with goes against their own policy.
I thought this forum was here to support each other. Sometimes it feels like getting judged. I m not trying to defend free a paedophile or rapist. I just wanna live a life with the one I love

"Any measure taken by national authorities with a view to prevent abuse must fully respect the fundamental rules and principles of EU law. In particular, genuine couples should not be prevented, discouraged or dissuaded from exercising their fundamental right to free movement by unjustified or disproportionate measures. This is a pre-requisite for the fight against abuse to be effective without undermining EU law and its objectives."

We are a genuine couple. And I still wonder how immigration officers can interview me and say they believe me and give us permission but yet say it's a sham!

secret.simon wrote:To a disinterested person, it seems that the marriage was being done to legalise his stay in the UK and for no other reason. What evidence have you provided to the Home Office that that is not the case?

I hope that that just means that that reason may seem to be the only reason for the relationship. As a matter of caution, I myself would counsel against the marriage but for immigration considerations.

What is a problem, and I don't see how one would refute it, is that what we have been told matches the description of a 'marriage by deception', one of the categories of a 'marriage of convenience' according to the EU commission's handbook on assessment of Sham marriage (the subject of one of the pinned topics on this forum).

A marriage by deception arises when the EU spouse is deceived by the non-EU spouse to genuinely believe that the couple will lead a genuine and lasting marital life.

Such marriage is a marriage of convenience and should be tackled accordingly, with due regard to the innocence of the EU spouse. In such marriages, the EU citizen is not a willing accomplice, but a victim guilty only of good faith.

Such marriages typically, but not necessarily, follow a short relationship on the internet, or after the EU citizen has met the non-EU spouse in a foreign country on holidays.

They may involve violence and threatening behaviour, particularly if the EU spouse has started to have concerns and is unwilling to participate in the immigration process.

(The 4th paragraph does not apply in this case.)

secret.simon wrote:The European Council decision of 19th February 2016 states, inter alia,

In accordance with Union law, Member States are able to take action to...address cases of contracting or maintaining marriages of convenience with third country nationals for the purpose of making use of free movement as a route for regularising unlawful stay in a Member State...

This is one of the clarifications that only come into effect if the UK votes to remain in the EU.

If the German Authority has confirmed that the marriage by proxy that was officiated in Gambia is lawful, then you are a married person and cannot remarry. I think your case should be fought within that context.

Yes.

It seems that one issue here, as explained in the other (now locked thread) that the HO have considerable doubts that the official paperwork for the proxy marriage was in order and the Registrar wasn't a 'competent' person, therefore the marriage is deemed to be invalid.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/eea-ro ... l#p1358835

Richard W wrote: What is a problem, and I don't see how one would refute it, is that what we have been told matches the description of a 'marriage by deception', one of the categories of a 'marriage of convenience' according to the EU commission's handbook on assessment of Sham marriage (the subject of one of the pinned topics on this forum).

A marriage by deception arises when the EU spouse is deceived by the non-EU spouse to genuinely believe that the couple will lead a genuine and lasting marital life.

Such marriage is a marriage of convenience and should be tackled accordingly, with due regard to the innocence of the EU spouse. In such marriages, the EU citizen is not a willing accomplice, but a victim guilty only of good faith.

Such marriages typically, but not necessarily, follow a short relationship on the internet, or after the EU citizen has met the non-EU spouse in a foreign country on holidays.

They may involve violence and threatening behaviour, particularly if the EU spouse has started to have concerns and is unwilling to participate in the immigration process.

(The 4th paragraph does not apply in this case.)

secret.simon wrote:The European Council decision of 19th February 2016 states, inter alia,

In accordance with Union law, Member States are able to take action to...address cases of contracting or maintaining marriages of convenience with third country nationals for the purpose of making use of free movement as a route for regularising unlawful stay in a Member State...

This is one of the clarifications that only come into effect if the UK votes to remain in the EU.

This is very true. I have read their handbook last night and and all their score points match us.

1. I have been married to a gambian before. A year after his citizen ship I filed for divorce.
(I could not give him a child and he wanted one so badly. I distanced myself from him and cheated on him. He was working a lot and I was lonely. So I moved on.)
2. I have met him online and we conducted the marriage shortly after.
(I wanted to convert to Islam for a while and once I finally converted did not want to live in sin) we got married.
3. He has been in different EU countries.
4. He would not be able to aquire residence in another way
5. We have no financial commitments together. (How could we when he is not having proper documents to work or take a mortgage)

But we are living together in the same house for 1.5 years.
we have bills together.
we have dreams together that he voices out before I say them. E.g me ex always wanted to live near the city. My recent man hates the city and I do

I am not totally stupid. I know of the possibility of being fooled into marriage. So I took my time before disclosing any preferences so that they can't be matched.

Even if there was the possibility of an interest in getting a 'paper'. Interest turns into getting used to each other and into love

You cannot spend all of your free time with a person and have sex and not have feelongs for that person

Arranged marriages don't start with love. There is an interest behind the arrangements but it turns into love.

We love each other and it's is a genuine relationship. Unfortunately you cannot prove a feeling!

Casa wrote:It seems that one issue here, as explained in the other (now locked thread) that the HO have considerable doubts that the official paperwork for the proxy marriage was in order and the Registrar wasn't a 'competent' person, therefore the marriage is deemed to be invalid.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/eea-ro ... l#p1358835

True.

But even if they were accepting it as valid. We could still get married here because it was a religious marriage.

Obie wrote:If the German Authority has confirmed that the marriage by proxy that was officiated in Gambia is lawful, then you are a married person and cannot remarry. I think your case should be fought within that context.

They did not confirm that this particular marriage was lawful.

The HO rejected the application with the argument that it is NOT the HOST COUNTRY that has to accept a marriage by proxy as legal but the HOME COUNTRY OF THE EEA MEMBER.

So for the HO office to give a RP a proxy marriage would have to be accepted in Germany

I have go an email from the German embassy that says
If the marriage is legal in the country where is was conducted, it will be legal in Germany

Of course it would have to go through the process of registering.
So far the HO argument was that UK may accept proxy marriages but Germany not.

I know there are rules set out as to how to proceed once a detainee applys to get marroed in detention and according to

Dietention service order 06/2015

Once the partners have complied with the investigation and have the permission to marry, no immigration officer has the power to stop the marriage. There are three conditions to consider when getting married in detention.
Bearing those conditions in mind the marriage has to be made available.

Question

How do we apply to get married while being
in detention?

Notice period has been passed, commies with Vindictive investigation passed!
Notice is valid for one year.

What steps to take now? Who to apply to go get an appointment near detention centre?
How to arrange?

Zimsparta wrote:Question

How do we apply to get married while being
in detention?

Notice period has been passed, commies with Vindictive investigation passed!
Notice is valid for one year.

What steps to take now? Who to apply to go get an appointment near detention centre?
How to arrange?

This doesn't appear to be an immigration question per se.
More a question for Home Office &/or detention authorities (whoever they are).

Zimsparta wrote:

Obie wrote:If the German Authority has confirmed that the marriage by proxy that was officiated in Gambia is lawful, then you are a married person and cannot remarry. I think your case should be fought within that context.

They did not confirm that this particular marriage was lawful.

The HO rejected the application with the argument that it is NOT the HOST COUNTRY that has to accept a marriage by proxy as legal but the HOME COUNTRY OF THE EEA MEMBER.

So for the HO office to give a RP a proxy marriage would have to be accepted in Germany

I have go an email from the German embassy that says
If the marriage is legal in the country where is was conducted, it will be legal in Germany

Of course it would have to go through the process of registering.
So far the HO argument was that UK may accept proxy marriages but Germany not.

Was he given and appeal right and has it been exercised?

What's all these nonsense some members are spouting away on this board? The likes of Secret-simon (Google warrior) and some of his or her mates describing a marriage of convenience in the context of commission document which is yet to become law? The commission document means nothing until at least UK votes to remain a member of the EU, and as far as I am aware a vote on that is yet to take place.

This forum is becoming so annoying with members like these, and to think most of you are immigrants before you begged to be granted citizenship in this country. Little people.

@lurli,
I am so flattered at having such a devoted follower as you. Almost all your posts are comments on mine, so you must be following me very closely indeed.

lurli wrote:The likes of Secret-simon (Google warrior) and some of his or her mates...

I appreciate your effort at gender-neutral language.

lurli wrote:The commission document means nothing until at least UK votes to remain a member of the EU, and as far as I am aware a vote on that is yet to take place.

Page 2 of that document suggests that the document has already been voted on, approved (by unanimity, I believe) and would come into force automatically on the UK government notifying the EU authorities that it is remaining in the EU. Certain parts of the document are incumbent on the European Commission bringing forward proposals for amending the relevant directives, which may take a while, but as I understand it, the document takes legal effect immediately on the UK government's notification.

Richard W wrote:

secret.simon wrote: The European Council decision of 19th February 2016 states, inter alia,
In accordance with Union law, Member States are able to take action to...address cases of contracting or maintaining marriages of convenience with third country nationals for the purpose of making use of free movement as a route for regularising unlawful stay in a Member State...

This is one of the clarifications that only come into effect if the UK votes to remain in the EU.

lurli wrote:the context of commission document which is yet to become law?

As I understand it, the clarification is only restating existing law, not creating new law and hence does not need to be enacted, but is already law, irrespective of the outcome of the referendum. Hence, my quotation from the document.

lurli wrote:to think most of you are immigrants before you begged to be granted citizenship in this country.

That is probably the reason why we care for this country, because we are citizens now.

lurli wrote:This forum is becoming so annoying with members like these

I agree. It is so inconvenient and irritating to have somebody disagreeing with you or the consensus in a discussion. So much better if everybody went in only one direction, like a well-behaved herd to the slaughter.

lurli wrote:Little people.

When I was younger, "Little Women" and "Little Men" by Louisa May Alcott were some of my favourite books to read. They must be available in any good public library. I would highly recommend them to you.

Uncharted territory. Stay frosty.

Secret Simon I believe I have warned you previously about bringing in referendum matters into this topic.

Firstly it is wholly irrelecant to Op's post , secondly the views expressed on how these so called new legislation will come into place are wholly inaccurate, and thirdly, we have created a separate forum for discussion on referendum matters.

Please don't try and create confusion . No one is above the forum rules.

I am not bringing the referendum topic into this thread.

I quoted a specific document that I believe is pertinent to the discussion and then stated the reasons why I believe it already applies.

The purpose of a forum is to discuss and I have offered a point of view on the OP's question.

I look forward to hearing your opinion on why my thoughts on when the legislation comes into force are wholly inaccurate.

I have no doubts of the moderators' ability to manage the forum discussions in a way suitable for all participants.

There is no intention on my path to engage with you in a debate on a proposed document which is not law.

My focus in this thread is to engage op's case based on the existing legislation and case law as interpreted by our domestic and CJEU .

We agree to disgaree then .

I look forward to hearing your points of views regarding the applicability or not of the legislation in the Referendum section of these forums, so as not to detract from the OP's question.

secret.simon wrote:I am not bringing the referendum topic into this thread.

I quoted a specific document that I believe is pertinent to the discussion and then stated the reasons why I believe it already applies.

The purpose of a forum is to discuss and I have offered a point of view on the OP's question.

I look forward to hearing your opinion on why my thoughts on when the legislation comes into force are wholly inaccurate.

I have no doubts of the moderators' ability to manage the forum discussions in a way suitable for all participants.

So you needed someone to engage you before you are able to discern why your thoughts on the legislation are wholly inaccurate? I have come to the conclusion that you are either completely ignorant of the law, a troll or both. Most of the views you expressed on the EEA section are simply not consistent with the law and its a waste of time for one to try to correct you. You must be troll.

secret.simon wrote:We agree to disgaree then .

I look forward to hearing your points of views regarding the applicability or not of the legislation in the Referendum section of these forums, so as not to detract from the OP's question.

Well you must have read my views for several weeks or months before topic was moved.


It is wholly pointless for me to restate them.