Arrested at wedding despite permission

secret.simon wrote:@lurli,

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.

At present, immigration advantage has to be the sole (or just perhaps primary) purpose for a marriage to be disqualified as one of convenience. Disqualification if it is just one of of the purposes would be quite a change in the law. It's not clear to me that such a change is intended, and if it is not, the clarification should be irrelevant to this case. The application to failed marriages, not relevant to this case, seems to run contrary to the Diatta judgement. It is not clear how a 'clarification' changes the law, as someone (Obie, I think) has already pointed out. It certainly gave me visions of the executive browbeating the judiciary.

We were trying to get married in the detention but the and have the letter that we have complied with the investigation.
HO told Detention Floor manager not to give us permission because he would be trying to enter in a sham marriage.
What can I do?

Obie wrote:

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?

Yes he appealed and the appeal is pending

Never thought a world power and civilised country can abuse their power like this.
The Home Office is denying him his Human right to get married in detention.
Going against their own policies.
I feel like being in a third world country.
maybe there I would be better off cause it would be cheaper to bribe the authorities

Zimsparta wrote:...

I feel like being in a third world country.
maybe there I would be better off cause it would be cheaper to bribe the authorities

Unfortunately it could be argued that is just the kind of gung ho approach that has brought you to where you now find yourself.

You were the ones who thought lying through your teeth was a Good Idea. That's not all the Home Office's fault, is it?

Zimsparta wrote:Never thought a world power and civilised country can abuse their power like this.
The Home Office is denying him his Human right to get married in detention.
Going against their own policies.
I feel like being in a third world country.
maybe there I would be better off cause it would be cheaper to bribe the authorities

You have undertaken the investigation process, and you have been approved to get married.

It is unlawfully for them to deny you the ability to get married.

Detention Service order 06-2015.

They have not legal power to do that.

You cannot be denied your right under Article 9 of the Charter and Article 12 of the ECHR.

Obie wrote:

Zimsparta wrote:Never thought a world power and civilised country can abuse their power like this.
The Home Office is denying him his Human right to get married in detention.
Going against their own policies.
I feel like being in a third world country.
maybe there I would be better off cause it would be cheaper to bribe the authorities

You have undertaken the investigation process, and you have been approved to get married.

It is unlawfully for them to deny you the ability to get married.

Detention Service order 06-2015.

They have not legal power to do that.

You cannot be denied your right under Article 9 of the Charter and Article 12 of the ECHR.

After complaining about them discriminating my human right, they have finally started to make a move. The problem is that he is in another County in another City and therefore we have to give notice again.

That means it will take 70 days again. He has got a removal date for the 29th of July.
We are going to do a JR but HO thinks they have llmighty powers. So who knows.

If it is the first Judicial review, he should be able to stop the removal. Otherwise seek a stay .

avjones wrote:You were the ones who thought lying through your teeth was a Good Idea. That's not all the Home Office's fault, is it?

Sometime out of fear and for love people do stupid things.
There is a difference between lying and getting my human right seized.

They can charge me for lying but they should not deny me my human right.
Especially when they have given me the permission in the first palce.

I was at the town hall to get married on Thursday.
They knew that he was illegal the weeks and days before that.
He went to sign with HO every two weeks.
Why would they let me book the wedding and pay for it and then come and stop it?
Because I lied? That's how they punish me? They are no judge. No reason to apply lynch justice. They could have arrested him a day before. a week before or a day after.

Even though we lied, we did not hurt anybody.
Never claimed any money since I came here.
Never committed a crime.
But to enter illegal in this country is a more serious crime than rape or murder.

I have made my mistake, I am paying for it.
Poking the wound is rather contrahelpful than encouraging.
We didn't kill somebody and take nobody's space. All we want is to be together and we are really suffering so digging out old posts and point a finger is just....
Tell me something I dont know. Not what I know.
Dont forget the fact that we are married already and the HO is not always honest either. they make up stories or are unable to count the weeks from 15/05 to 02/06. cause they say that is more than one month. They also say I have not been exercising my treaty right which is a lie. I am here since 2004 and have a mortgage as well as p60s since 2004 and they say i am not settled.
they say he should proof that he has no contact to his family.
how can you prove NO contact?
if you say yo u have no contact they want you to prove, if you will want a family to come you have to prove that they are your family.
They bend the truth the way it suits them.
They buy tickets for people who have banns on removal and say judges will decide in their favor anyway.

They arrest a Latvian and say Latvia is not in the EU.
They wanna deport a pole and say he is a criminal even though no evidence was submitted in court.
A Jamaican is getting deported because his wife after 2.5 years decides to call the HO to tell them it is not a sustainable relationship because she saw a picture of him and a girl. They arrested him out of his wife's bed. Not one time listening to his side of the story. not questioning how this is not a real relationship but they are sleeping in the same bed.

They ambush people with the intention to deport them and they deny people their human right.
So how are they any better than someone telling a white lie about how they met?
They are hurting people. My lie did not hurt anyone.
HO is intimidating and ignorant
Of course I have to be worried that if I don't tell a lie about my relationship they will accuse me of a sham straight away.
Because that's all they do! Making life hard for people.

Zimsparta wrote: After complaining about them discriminating my human right, they have finally started to make a move. The problem is that he is in another County in another City and therefore we have to give notice again.

That means it will take 70 days again. He has got a removal date for the 29th of July.
We are going to do a JR but HO thinks they have llmighty powers. So who knows.

A judicial review does not in and of itself prevent removal. The Home Office can suspend removal directions if a JR is filed, but they don't have to. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It's less likely if removal is on a charter flight.

If they will not suspend the RDs of their own volition, the only way to prevent removal is to obtain an injunction from the Upper Tribunal after you have put the JR form and grounds in.