Uk Marriage While On Visa Restrictions Overturned

[Prakanong2005]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4894544.stm

Is this the law that prevents among others marriage while on a VV?

The law was ruled discriminatory and will have to go back to court or Parliament

Some rules have been suspended while the Home Office considers its case.

They will just close the loophole allowing CofE mariages and then its not discriminatory - easy enough?

[the weaver]

Is this the law that prevents among others marriage while on a VV?

Interestingly my sister married a failed asylum seeker who was in the country illegally they had a child then he went back to his native country and successfully applied for a sv.

It appears that although he was an illegal the marriage was still recocgnised.

[Prakanong2005]

Is this the law that prevents among others marriage while on a VV?

Interestingly my sister married a failed asylum seeker who was in the country illegally they had a child then he went back to his native country and successfully applied for a sv.

It appears that although he was an illegal the marriage was still recocgnised.

How long ago was that?

If I remember correctly this rule/law came in Feb 2005!

There was a guy on here recently saying his girfriend got pregnant while in the UK on a VV and he was asking how they could convert the visa without going back to Thailand.

Maybe (and this is a a big maybe as I do not know if this is the exact rule) if the rules are relaxed he might be able to nip in and get married before they close the loophole

Anyone know??

Edited April 10, 2006 by Prakanong2005

[Prakanong2005]

Its the lead story on the BBC news this evening.

Its saying the rules are suspended and the government are going to have to have a re-think

Easy solution though - just ban marriages in the Church of England too on a VV or for anyone else under visa restrictions

[the scouser]

From the BBC link it's not clear exactly what has been declared incompatible: the ban on visitors marrying, or the requirement to obtain Home Office approval to marry. I think it's the latter, but will have a more in depth look later. Should this be so, visitors will still be unable to marry; it just means that those who currently have to apply for a certificate of approval won't have to do so.

As Prakanong says, if the Home Office loses any subsequent appeal, the easy way for the government to address this would appear to be to make Anglicans obtain a CoA too.

Scouse.

[the scouser]

The Times article states :-

...The test case against the Government was brought by Mahmoud Baiai, a 34-year-old Muslim from Algeria, and Izabela Trzcinska, a 26-year-old Polish Roman Catholic. Mr Baiai, an illegal immigrant, met Ms Trzcinska, an EU citizen, in 2004 and the couple applied to be married in early 2005....

This would seem to indicate that the judge has ruled that being unlawfully in the UK should not be a bar to getting married. If this is the case, then, yes, any foreign national, irrespective of their immigration status, would be able to marry in the UK (just as it used to be prior to Feb 2005).

It'll be interesting to see what the Home Office site says on the matter....

The Times' article in its entirety.

Scouse.

[Prakanong2005]

The Times article states :-

...The test case against the Government was brought by Mahmoud Baiai, a 34-year-old Muslim from Algeria, and Izabela Trzcinska, a 26-year-old Polish Roman Catholic. Mr Baiai, an illegal immigrant, met Ms Trzcinska, an EU citizen, in 2004 and the couple applied to be married in early 2005....

This would seem to indicate that the judge has ruled that being unlawfully in the UK should not be a bar to getting married. If this is the case, then, yes, any foreign national, irrespective of their immigration status, would be able to marry in the UK (just as it used to be prior to Feb 2005).

It'll be interesting to see what the Home Office site says on the matter....

The Times' article in its entirety.

Scouse.

Home Office Minister on the 10 o-clock BBC News just said they would have to make sure the next legisltation did not fall foul of the law - ie ban CofE weddings as well so no discrimination.

The Figures given on sham weddings dropped from their thousands in 2004 for 300+ last year

[vinny]

I tend to agree with the judge on this issue. Freedom to marry should be independent of immigration status. There already is a provision, 284(i), to prevent certain groups of people present in the UK from "switching" into the marriage category of the immigration rules. I would have thought that this was sufficient for immigration control.

[Prakanong2005]

I tend to agree with the judge on this issue. Freedom to marry should be independent of immigration status. There already is a provision, 284(i), to prevent certain groups of people present in the UK from "switching" into the marriage category of the immigration rules. I would have thought that this was sufficient for immigration control.

I agree with the Judge in that one group ie CofE should not be able to marry while others can while subject to visa restrictions and so the govt should block it.

Sham marriages have gone down from thousands per year to a suspected 300 odd.

If you want to get married get a proper visa that qualifies for this.

If you fall head over heels on a VV then leave the country and apply for the correct visa to get married.

[GU22]

It seems that the court has not ruled that the rule itself is discriminatory, but that the exemption for couples marrying in the Church of England is; and the court is, IMO, correct.

I cannot understand why the government made this exemption. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that it was going to be a source of trouble and result in lots of work and large fees for human rights lawyers.

Cherie Blair is a human rights lawyer.

[the weaver]

Interestingly my sister married a failed asylum seeker who was in the country illegally they had a child then he went back to his native country and successfully applied for a sv.

It appears that although he was an illegal the marriage was still recocgnised.

How long ago was that?

If I remember correctly this rule/law came in Feb 2005!

this was only last spring, but they were married by the church of england

the point I was making was that although he was in the country illegally the government still recognised that he was married

[the weaver]

It seems that the court has not ruled that the rule itself is discriminatory, but that the exemption for couples marrying in the Church of England is; and the court is, IMO, correct.

I cannot understand why the government made this exemption. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that it was going to be a source of trouble and result in lots of work and large fees for human rights lawyers.

Cherie Blair is a human rights lawyer.

Surely if thats the case then it has nothing to do with human rights but everything to do with illegal race discrimination. Human Rights would suggest that anyone anywhere could marry.

The exception was made simply because the CoE have their own rules on marrying which would make it impossible for a sham marriage to take place

[vinny]

Sham marriages have gone down from thousands per year to a suspected 300 odd.

It is interesting to note that the 'thousands per year' were notifications of "alleged" sham marriages. In 2003, there were 2,712 notifications, but only 110 people were arrested.

See also alternative Amendment proposals, MARRIAGE NOT A GROUND FOR LEAVE TO REMAIN and Clauses 19 to 25 – procedure for marriage.

Edited April 11, 2006 by vinny

[Prakanong2005]

Alleged they may have been but applying probabilities to them given the evidence they probably were!

It is only exceptional cases where someone would feel the need to get married on a VV - I would put say a GF getting pregnant or the like.

For everything else there are the proper visa's.

Sham marriages were all over. As a student in the 80's a pal was offered 2500GBP to marry an Iranian.

In 97 or 98 it was there was 5000GBP or so on the go to marry a Thai girl in Edinburgh. The Thai girl who found the guy kept half of it and he got half. The bit we thought hilarious was they actually consumated the marriage

[the scouser]

I tend to agree with the judge on this issue. Freedom to marry should be independent of immigration status. There already is a provision, 284(i), to prevent certain groups of people present in the UK from "switching" into the marriage category of the immigration rules. I would have thought that this was sufficient for immigration control.

Although most foreign nationals who wished to contract a sham marriage were savvy enough to do so with an EEA national, knowing that they could not only still qualify for permission to stay in the UK, but that the process was free, and less stringent than the criteria laid down by the immigration rules.

Scouse.

[Prakanong2005]

Yeah Scouse and just as with the expansion of the EU Polish plumbers are cheaper maybe sham marriage fee's would have fallen too

[GU22]

Interesting point raised in the Lords in July 2004 on the point of sham marriages and EEA permits. From Lords Hansard

The Countess of Mar:

I have limited the scope of the amendment to spouses who are British citizens because I recognise that we must observe the terms of EEA treaties..... it is now EEA nationals who are a major source of bogus spouses.... Is this a problem common throughout the EEA and, if not, why is the UK so disadvantaged?