As I understand it, the Primary Purpose Rule was in place to prevent people entering into a marriage of convenience with a UK resident in order to obtain settlement in the UK. To put it simply, if the ECO believed that the sole purpose of the marriage was to get a visa, then the application would be refused.

The Primary Purpose Rule was abolished in 1997.

Yet, we still hear of spouse visa applicants being refused as the ECO is not satisfied that the relationship is genuine and that applicant and sponsor intend to live together as husband and wife once in the UK.

How can this be?

We all still advise spouse visa applicants to provide as much evidence as possible of the length and strength of their relationship.

Why is this necessary?

Surely as the Primary Purpose Rule no longer exists, and hasn't for 12 years, all that should be necessary to prove the relationship is production of the marriage certificate?

Any comments, anyone?

I agree why should you have to prove a relationship is genuine when you are married if in a different country, My first marriage was to a uk lady was not asked anything, I feel that my human rights have gone because iam married to a thai and i have to ask what we can do and pay lots off money,Which i also think the goverment are treating them like prostituts by making us pay money for visa etc in a round about way,

The Primary Purpose Rule was abolished in 1997. How can this be? My opion is that there is one rule for us and one rule for goverment, Mybe they put it on there tax return

pete

Why is this necessary?

Surely as the Primary Purpose Rule no longer exists, and hasn't for 12 years, all that should be necessary to prove the relationship is production of the marriage certificate?

Brit Cit. visits Thailand on holiday and marries a Thai who has paid him/her X for the privilege.

Any further comment needed?

Brit Cit. visits Thailand on holiday and marries a Thai who has paid him/her X for the privilege.

Any further comment needed?

That's a cause though , not a law.

This is interesting post - I am sure there must be something in place, but what I do not know.

I do often wander if the hoops i have been made to jump through recently intervene my human rights in some way...I have had to share my finanical, personal and private life for scruntinization by someone i don't know - when I should not have to as I am in fact legally recognised as married.

Edited May 14, 200917 yr by tlusername

To put it simply, if the ECO believed that the sole purpose of the marriage was to get a visa, then the application would be refused.

The Primary Purpose Rule was abolished in 1997.

Yet, we still hear of spouse visa applicants being refused as the ECO is not satisfied that the relationship is genuine and that applicant and sponsor intend to live together as husband and wife once in the UK.

How can this be?

The intent to live together is a legal requirement for the visa.

Primary purpose, taken literally, would be fatal to many genuine applications. I married my wife because it was the only way we could live together under the immigration rules. (I suppose that we could, strictly, have got round the primary purpose rules, because she preferred, for security, to come to England as a wife rather than as a fiancée.)

I can't imagine this exchange boding well for an interview:

ECO: Why did you marry your husband?

Applicant: I wanted a claim on his assets and income if he abandoned me.

(I'm not quite sure what my wife had in mind by 'security' - she may have has other worries about being on her own in a strange land.)

Primary purpose and intention to live together are not synonymous.

In the pre-'97 Rules, one had to demonstrate both that it was not the primary purpose of the marriage for the foreign national to gain entry to the UK and that the parties intended to live together permanently. This gave rise to a situation whereby someone in a perfectly genuine relationship could still be refused because, for example, they indicated a desire to work once in the UK. This could lead the ECO to conclude that whilst he accepted the intent to live together, it was the lure of employment that was the individual's motivation.

As Electra comments, if one were not to have to prove the authenticity of a relationship, and that simply to be married were enough to get a visa, then the door would be wide open to the abuse he describes.

Scouse.