Spring changes to the definition of Marriage of Conveneince
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:29 pm
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.
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.