Spring changes to the definition of Marriage of Conveneince

Well the Spring change to the definition of Marriage has come into effect.

It is beginning to sound like a cliche when I say the is an unlawful provision.

Marriage of Convenience is defined as follows:

“marriage of convenience” includes a marriage entered into for the purpose of using these Regulations, or any other right conferred by the EU Treaties, as a means to circumvent—

(a)
immigration rules applying to non-EEA nationals (such as any applicable requirement under the 1971 Act to have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom); or

(b)
any other criteria that the party to the marriage of convenience would otherwise have to meet in order to enjoy a right to reside under these Regulations or the EU Treaties;


That has never been the position in EU Law. It seems reminiscent to the primary purpose rules which was remove from UK law.

I have had the mother of a family with 2 children, received a refusal today, saying that, notwithstanding the fact that her marriage to her husband is genuine, they believed it was also entered into to circumvent the 1971 act.

The decision is totally devoid of logic. No reasonable, law abiding Secretary of State could have come up such refusal.

Firstly as i have mentioned , it is unlawful.

Secondly, it does not fall into the definition, which has always been a marriage contracted for the sole purpose of seeking benefits from the regulation.

It cannot amount to marriage of convenience if 60 percent of the purpose of marriage is for Immigration Benefit, and 40 % is for love.

I was most distraught by this refusal, and need to put members of this forum on notice, that the UKVI will seek to use any means, even if it is unlawful, to undermine their rights of residence.

What is the relevant ECJ/CJEU case law on "marriage of convenience"?

secret.simon wrote:What is the relevant ECJ/CJEU case law on "marriage of convenience"?

It will be nice if you told me, seen as you are a person who has huge interest in law, politics and research.

I clearly have not mentioned marriage of Convenience CJEU Case law in my post, but if you can find one, that will be most welcomed.

Commission Staff Working document on Marriage of Convenience

[b]Recital 28 of Directive 2004/38EC Provides:[/b] wrote:

(28) To guard against abuse of rights or fraud, notably marriages of convenience or any other form
of relationships contracted for the sole purpose of enjoying the right of free movement and
residence, Member States should have the possibility to adopt the necessary measures.

[quote="OXFORD Dictionary Definition of" Soley""]
Not involving anyone or anything else; only.[/quote]

Obie wrote:you are a person who has huge interest in law, politics and research.

Why, you charmer, thank you.

Research also involves asking people who may have the knowledge to share that knowledge. Which is what I did here.

Hi Obie just curious to know why that mother was refused? Was EU partner father of those two kids? Just wondering as I'm due to apply to have my residence card transfered to my passport without husband support (I filed for divorce in Jan and he's refusing to sign the divorce forms. We still live together just for sake of the kids......

New Supreme court ruling has rendered the Immigration EEA Regulations ultra vires.

[b] Regulation 2 Marriage of Convenience Definition[/b] wrote: marriage of convenience” includes a marriage entered into for the purpose of using these Regulations, or any other right conferred by the EU Treaties, as a means to circumvent—

(a)immigration rules applying to non-EEA nationals (such as any applicable requirement under the 1971 Act to have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom); or

(b)any other criteria that the party to the marriage of convenience would otherwise have to meet in order to enjoy a right to reside under these Regulations or the EU Treaties;

I said it will not stand the test of time and it has not. The Supreme COurt ruling, has correctly rendered in ultra vires.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... ummary.pdf

Supreme Court confirms that burden for proving marriage of convenience rests with Home Office > Sadovska and another (Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 54

Surprising decision:

Can a genuine couple be party to a ‘marriage of convenience’? > Molina, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 1730 (Admin) (12 July 2017).