Definition of "Primary Purpose" Once in UK Law

[Richard W]

UKIP is proposing to restore the "primary purpose" rule to the UK Immigration Rules. I can't find the text, but for spouse settlement visas, it was required that the primary reason for the marriage not be to obtain entry to the UK.

Now, my wife came to the UK after the rule has been dropped, but I can't understand how we would not have been caught out. Our problem would have been that we married rather than just shacking up together or having an unregistered marriage in Thailand so that my wife could come to the UK - my prospects of legally earning a living in Thailand did not seem good. Can someone please point out the legal arguments that would have stopped us falling foul of the rule? It seems that they exist, but I cannot find them.

The non-immigration reasons for contracting a registered marriage now seem even weaker. Legitimacy is no longer required for transmitting British citizenship to children, and few of us are likely to obtain inheritable honours. In Thailand, a religious wedding disposes of the issue of living in sin, and does not require the expense of registering a marriage.

Obviously this is not an immediate problem, but restoring "primary purpose" might be an easy concession for securing UKIP tolerance of a minority government after the next election.

[7by7]

A bit of history for those who don't know what this rule was.

The rule was introduced by the Conservatives in 1983. It imposed a requirement that the applicant should show "that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom". This was a major ground for refusing applications and dismissing appeals against refusal but it was controversial because it required the applicant to prove a negative. In 1997, shortly after Labour came to power after winning the general election of that year, the rule was abolished.

My wife, too, came to the UK after the primary purpose rule was abolished; but we still had to demonstrate that the relationship was genuine and subsisting; i.e. not a marriage of convenience.

That requirement still remains, though there is no hard and fast rule on this in the immigration rules.

In your case, Richard, if you had been living together in Thailand prior to the marriage, but not long enough to qualify as unmarried partners, then that would have demonstrated the genuineness of the relationship, and therefore the marriage, and that it was subsisting.

In my case, that we had been in a relationship for some time prior to the marriage and that I had visited her in Thailand several times and whilst I was in the UK communicated with her regularly also showed that the relationship was genuine and subsisting.

As far as I can make out, provided we had the necessary evidence to show this then, in both the above scenarios, the primary purpose rule would have been satisfied; had it still existed at the time.

Whether we would satisfy any new proposals put forward by UKIP, I can't say; though I doubt it. Particularly as they regularly talk of introducing a moratorium on all immigration from everywhere in all categories for at least 5 years should they ever have the power to do so.

A warning to those here who only see, and maybe agree with, UKIP's policies on the EU. Read their current and past manifestos very carefully; they are not just a single issue, i.e. anti EU, party.

It is not just EU immigrants UKIP want to stop; it's all immigrants; including your spouse or partner!

Edited December 22, 2014 by 7by7

[Richard W]

In my case, that we had been in a relationship for some time prior to the marriage and that I had visited her in Thailand several times and whilst I was in the UK communicated with her regularly also showed that the relationship was genuine and subsisting.

As far as I can make out, provided we had the necessary evidence to show this then, in both the above scenarios, the primary purpose rule would have been satisfied; had it still existed at the time.

Whether we would satisfy any new proposals put forward by UKIP, I can't say; though I doubt it.

It seems our circumstances were similar. I've been searching the Internet to try and find what UKIP says. Most sources say no more than:

The Primary Purpose Rule (abolished by the Labour Government) would be reintroduced, whereby those marrying or seeking to marry a British citizen would have to convince the admitting officer that this is their primary purpose in seeking to enter the UK and not to obtain British residence.

As this statement can only be made intelligible if restricted to fiancées or unmarried partners, it seems to confirm that UKIP have not thought matters through.

However, I found one UKIP source, a discussion document by UKIP MEP Gerard Batten, which goes on

Anyone wishing to marry a non-British citizen (from a country that requires a visa) will have to register their intention to marry in the UK prior to the marriage.

That, if taken literally, raises interesting questions of domicile for overseas Britons with non-British fathers. Will their marriages be invalid in Britain if they don't first take a trip to the UK? Finally, it goes on to become intelligible:

The non-British spouse or intended spouse will only be granted right of entry to the UK, if they can speak fluent English, and are at least 24 years of age. The spouse or intended spouse will have to undergo identification, language proficiency, and criminal record checks in their country of residence before qualifying for entry to the UK. The non-British spouse or intended spouse would have to demonstrate to the admitting officer in their country of origin that both parties are marrying of their own free will, that there is an existing personal relationship between them of not less than 12 months, and that he/she is conversant with British rights and customs pertaining to marriage, e.g. the equality of the sexes, the use of contraception, the right to initiate divorce etc. Polygamous wives will not be recognised as legitimate spouses for any legal purpose.

I think that age limit is contrary to European human rights, but most of us already suspect that British human rights will be less than European human rights.

These hurdles are less difficult to surmount than the original primary purpose requirement. Your (7by7's) wife might well have satisfied the suggested UKIP requirements; my wife had only a few words of English when she came to the UK, so she would not have satisfied the current requirements. We spoke together in Thai for the first few months in the UK.

[7by7]

<snip>

I found one UKIP source, a discussion document by UKIP MEP Gerard Batten, which goes on

Anyone wishing to marry a non-British citizen (from a country that requires a visa) will have to register their intention to marry in the UK prior to the marriage.

Your link just leads back to this page, so based on your quote; to whom is Mr. Batten directing this, I wonder.

As everyone of any nationality except EEA nationals, or qualifying family members of same, require a visa to enter the UK for any purpose (except non visa nationals who do not require a visa to enter just for visits, but can still be refused entry by immigration when they arrive; and British nationals who, of course do not require a visa to enter the UK for any purpose) it seems Mr. Batten is either making a major concession to EEA nationals and their families by not including them in this or simply does not know what he is talking about!

I suspect it's the latter.

These hurdles are less difficult to surmount than the original primary purpose requirement.

I would suggest the opposite; that they are more difficult!

The current minimum age for a spouse is 18; UKIP want to raise it to 24. (The current government did try and raise it to 21, but lost a legal challenge and it was put back to 18 again. Whether this went as far as the ECtHR, I can't remember).

It also seems that UKIP want the current KOLL requirement, or a tougher version of it, for ILR be required at the initial visa stage. A certain member here, durhamboy, has been very vocal in his opposition to KOLL; wonder what he thinks of that.

I'm against it. I see nothing wrong with the current system whereby the applicant shows a basic knowledge of English at first and then has 5 years in the UK in which to study and improve upon it before being granted ILR.

The polygamous marriage bit is window dressing for the ignorant. To be honest, I can't recall whether polygamous, or polyandrous, marriages are recognised under the Foreign Marriages Act or not; but I do know that someone who is in such a marriage can only bring one of his/her spouses to live with them in the UK under the current immigration rules (Paras 278 and 279).

Farage likes to project a cosy image of a pint drinking, pub loving image of someone who just wants to free the UK from the shackles of Brussels; but there is a lot of nastiness just under the surface of his party for those who take the time to look.

Edited December 23, 2014 by 7by7

[Richard W]

Your link just leads back to this page.

The link is http://britain-watch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/immigration.pdf - the link failed because I dropped the protocol.

[Richard W]

<snip>

I found one UKIP source, a discussion document by UKIP MEP Gerard Batten, which goes on

Anyone wishing to marry a non-British citizen (from a country that requires a visa) will have to register their intention to marry in the UK prior to the marriage.

As everyone of any nationality except EEA nationals, or qualifying family members of same, require a visa to enter the UK for any purpose (except non visa nationals who do not require a visa to enter just for visits, but can still be refused entry by immigration when they arrive; and British nationals who, of course do not require a visa to enter the UK for any purpose) it seems Mr. Batten is either making a major concession to EEA nationals and their families by not including them in this or simply does not know what he is talking about!

These hurdles are less difficult to surmount than the original primary purpose requirement.

I would suggest the opposite; that they are more difficult!

The current minimum age for a spouse is 18; UKIP want to raise it to 24.

At present, Britons do not have to register their intention to marry in the UK before going to Thailand (or Pakistan) and marrying a non-Briton. Having to register one's intention in advance would be a change. It might actually help stop forced marriages, so it's not an entirely stupid requirement. There are, however, problems for Britons who live overseas.

How would you demonstrate that you did not marry your wife so that you could live together in the UK? Legally unrecognised religious weddings are available in Thailand, and illegitimate children now differ little from legitimate children. Why should a couple contract a legally valid marriage just because they want to live together as man and wife?

I suspect the idea of raising the age limit to 24 is to make immature and therefore pliable foreign wives unavailable.

[Jay Sata]

I cannot see a problem with raising the barrier for a foreign partner from 18 to 24.

I suspect many UK voters will agree with such a proposal.

Arranged marriages are not the path to a successful settlement in the UK.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

I thought at first, Richard, that you were against UKIP's proposals; to be honest, now I'm not so sure!

At present, Britons do not have to register their intention to marry in the UK before going to Thailand (or Pakistan) and marrying a non-Briton. Having to register one's intention in advance would be a change. It might actually help stop forced marriages, so it's not an entirely stupid requirement. There are, however, problems for Britons who live overseas.

I don't see how it would stop someone from being forced into marriage. It just means that the person concerned would also be forced into registering the intention to marry before leaving the UK; easily done in the circumstances.

As for the majority of us; I had no intention of marrying anyone when I first went to Thailand; I had not met my wife at that time. Neither did I know anything about the requirements for settlement when I married my wife. Posts on this and similar forums suggest that the majority of British citizens who marry foreigners are the same.

So if UKIP's proposals had been in force then as I had not registered my intention to marry before leaving the UK my wife would have been denied settlement in the UK with me. If UKIP do get their way, many honest British citizens and their foreign spouses will be denied a life together in the UK.

How would you demonstrate that you did not marry your wife so that you could live together in the UK? Legally unrecognised religious weddings are available in Thailand, and illegitimate children now differ little from legitimate children. Why should a couple contract a legally valid marriage just because they want to live together as man and wife?

As said before, proving a negative is very difficult. Apart from providing the evidence that the relationship is genuine and subsisting mentioned before, the only way I can see of doing this is to introduce a requirement similar to that for unmarried partners; i.e. the couple must have lived together outside the UK for at least two years. Which would have been very difficult for us; I had work to return to in the UK after my sabbatical, but finding work in Thailand would have been very difficult for me. I am sure I am not alone in this.

I suspect the idea of raising the age limit to 24 is to make immature and therefore pliable foreign wives unavailable.

Plenty of immature and pliable men and women under 24 already in the UK; if that's what someone wants!

Arranged marriages are not illegal in the UK and are common in many cultures; even in Western Europe until relatively recently. As long as both parties to the marriage are agreeable and enter the marriage willingly I see nothing wrong with that.

UKIP want to stop foreign spouses coming to the UK to live with their British spouse; a bit rich considering their leader, Nigel Farage, is married to a German and they live together in the UK!

Furthermore, Farage is against EEA nationals coming to the UK to work and 'taking jobs from British people.' Guess who he employs as his secretary. His German wife!

I suspect that the sole aim of all UKIP's proposals is to stop brown people, especially those from South Asia, coming into the UK.

There are many who would agree with this, including certain members of this forum.

Let's hope UKIP never get any power; because if they do then those members here currently living in Thailand can forget about ever moving to the UK with their Thai spouse.

[Jay Sata]

UKIP have never stated they are anti Asian and to suggest such such is a slur.

They do want proper immigration controls hence their substantial support.

Blair and Brown opened the floodgates that has allowed the population to swell by several million since the start of the millennium.

Nigel Farage wants to wrest control of our courts and borders from the EU judges in Strasbourg that allows murderers and crooks to remain in the UK on human rights grounds.

There is nothing wrong with a properly controlled immigration policy.

If someone is genuine and can tick all the boxes to enter,live and work in the UK and accept the UK way of life that is fine by me.

[Tony M]

UKIP have never stated they are anti Asian and to suggest such such is a slur.

They do want proper immigration controls hence their substantial support.

Blair and Brown opened the floodgates that has allowed the population to swell by several million since the start of the millennium.

Nigel Farage wants to wrest control of our courts and borders from the EU judges in Strasbourg that allows murderers and crooks to remain in the UK on human rights grounds.

There is nothing wrong with a properly controlled immigration policy.

If someone is genuine and can tick all the boxes to enter,live and work in the UK and accept the UK way of life that is fine by me.

You say you are happy if they accept the UK way of life. Well, the British way of life is to allow marriage ( without parental consent) at age 18, but that, apparently is not fine by you for non British nationals. You want it to be 24, as do UKIP, it seems.

[7by7]

If you believe UKIP do not have a racist agenda then you are either extremely naïve or have not been paying attention.

Blair and Brown opened the floodgates that has allowed the population to swell by several million since the start of the millennium.

I am amazed when people make this claim.

Family immigration changes under Blair and Brown:-

• The qualifying period for ILR was increased from 12 months to 24.
• The fee for the initial visa was set at a level far above actual cost and set to increase at a rate above inflation each year.
• Fees for FLR and ILR, previously included in the initial visa fee, were introduced at a level way above cost and set to increase at a rate above inflation each year.
• The LitUK test was introduced; firstly for naturalisation applicants shortly followed by ILR applicants as well.
• The rules for an adult dependent settlement visa were changed to make it virtually impossible to obtain one.

In addition, both student and work visa fees were increased and the requirements for both toughened.

So, pray tell, how did Blair and Brown open the floodgates?

You have often said that you are an Irish national who used the EEA rules to live in the UK with your Thai wife. You and Farage obviously feel that the rules you took advantage of should not be available to anyone else!

The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights are nothing to do with the EU. If the UK were to leave the EU, doing so would not effect our obligations under the ECHR in any way.

Foreign murderers and other criminals are deported; though the legal process was often lengthy and on too many occasions no attempt to do so was even made. That this was so had absolutely nothing to do with either the EU or the ECtHR.

The government have introduced new laws to make the system easier and quicker; Foreign criminals finally stripped of right to launch 'conveyor belt' of appeals to avoid deportation: New laws will reduce number of grounds they can contest removal to four

The four remaining grounds of appeal are if a migrant is claiming asylum; their human rights are genuinely threatened; an existing decision to grant asylum is being revoked or if they are married to an EU citizen.

These are only factors to be considered – not a bar to removal.

If someone is genuine and can tick all the boxes to enter,live and work in the UK and accept the UK way of life that is fine by me.

Fine by me, too. But the rules, the boxes they have to tick, should be fair, equitable and achievable by the ordinary person.

For example; the legal age for marriage in the UK is 16. Why should a British citizen who wishes to marry a foreigner wait until their intended is 24?

[Richard W]

I thought at first, Richard, that you were against UKIP's proposals; to be honest, now I'm not so sure!

At present, Britons do not have to register their intention to marry in the UK before going to Thailand (or Pakistan) and marrying a non-Briton. Having to register one's intention in advance would be a change. It might actually help stop forced marriages, so it's not an entirely stupid requirement. There are, however, problems for Britons who live overseas.

I don't see how it would stop someone from being forced into marriage. It just means that the person concerned would also be forced into registering the intention to marry before leaving the UK; easily done in the circumstances.

Registration would alert the victim to the parents' plan. She (or he) would then have the option of attempting to escape her parents' control while still in the UK.

As we have both noted, such a scheme would not be appropriate where the British citizen was residing abroad. As to other cases, marriage is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly and soberly.

How would you demonstrate that you did not marry your wife so that you could live together in the UK? Legally unrecognised religious weddings are available in Thailand, and illegitimate children now differ little from legitimate children. Why should a couple contract a legally valid marriage just because they want to live together as man and wife?

Apart from providing the evidence that the relationship is genuine and subsisting mentioned before, the only way I can see of doing this is to introduce a requirement similar to that for unmarried partners; i.e. the couple must have lived together outside the UK for at least two years. Which would have been very difficult for us; I had work to return to in the UK after my sabbatical, but finding work in Thailand would have been very difficult for me. I am sure I am not alone in this.

We are talking at cross-purposes, for we do not interpret 'marriage' whose purpose would be to assessed in the same way. You are looking at it as the formation of a union; I was looking it as the registration of such a union (existing or imminent). Under your interpretation, which does appear to be how the courts were interpreting 'marriage', it looks as though 'primary purpose' could be applied to an unregistered partnership as well as to a marriage.

Indeed, to cut down immigration from Thailand, the Philippines and the ex-USSR, the immigration rules could simply treat registered partnerships the same as unregistered partnerships are currently treated. That would be a diabolical move.

[Richard W]

So, pray tell, how did Blair and Brown open the floodgates?

Except for welfare, Poles were given the same rights as Germans. Restrictions could have been maintained until after their term of office. One could even argue that Blair should not have allowed Poland into the EU.

I'm not sure of the final effectiveness of the 'primary purpose' rule in keeping out South Asians husbands of British citizens. Some people certainly seem to think it was still effective.

[durhamboy]

7by7 says above :-

"It also seems that UKIP want the current KOLL requirement, or a tougher version of it, for ILR be required at the initial visa stage. A certain member here, durhamboy, has been very vocal in his opposition to KOLL; wonder what he thinks of that.

I'm against it. I see nothing wrong with the current system whereby the applicant shows a basic knowledge of English at first and then has 5 years in the UK in which to study and improve upon it before being granted ILR."

I don't think that just because UKIP may introduce tougher KOLL etc. that we should suddenly start saying that the current system is acceptable. In my opinion the current system is not good and I really think that you should have practical knowledge of the inadequacies of the current system to pass comment; to wit :-

1. English Language Tests - not fit for purpose (because they are piggy-backing on tests from third parties and not specifically designed for people seeking settlement visas). Furthermore, absolute shambles as to expiry dates and acceptability of struck off tests. Yes agree that applicants should show a basic knowledge of English but the manner in which this has to be achieved is disgraceful.

2. LITUK - I would agree for a PRACTICAL LITUK test to be passed for the citizenship stage not ILR stage. Why should people have to pay extortionate visa fees every couple of years just because they can't pass a test that the average Brit couldn't pass?

Unfortunately, whilst I agree with 7by7 on everything else he says about UKIP, having KOLL as it is only gives more ammo to UKIP i.e. they will say "Well these tests are not working so we need to make them harder!"

[7by7]

So, pray tell, how did Blair and Brown open the floodgates?

Except for welfare, Poles were given the same rights as Germans. Restrictions could have been maintained until after their term of office.

Really, Richard, I'm surprised that you have fallen for the myth of EEA nationals flooding into the UK and immediately being given bucket loads of state money and council houses!!

One could even argue that Blair should not have allowed Poland into the EU.

Did Blair have such a veto?

Not that reintroducing the primary purpose rule would have any effect on migration from the EEA.

I'm not sure of the final effectiveness of the 'primary purpose' rule in keeping out South Asians husbands of British citizens. Some people certainly seem to think it was still effective.

It was certainly effective in stopping many genuine couples from living together in the UK, regardless of the nationality of the foreign spouse.

Whether you think this was a good thing or not depends, I suppose, on your politics.

[7by7]

<snip>

I don't think that just because UKIP may introduce tougher KOLL etc. that we should suddenly start saying that the current system is acceptable.

Except I have not suddenly started to say it; I've been saying it for a long time

Unfortunately, whilst I agree with 7by7 on everything else he says about UKIP, having KOLL as it is only gives more ammo to UKIP i.e. they will say "Well these tests are not working so we need to make them harder!"

I fail to see your logic.

If the tests, especially the LitUK test, are as difficult as you regularly claim; if, as you regularly claim, "people have to pay extortionate visa fees every couple of years just because they can't pass a test that the average Brit couldn't pass" then why would UKIP, or anyone else, feel the need to make them harder?

What UKIP propose isn't making the test harder; it's moving it forward from ILR to the initial visa stage.

I accept that certain aspects of the initial language test and the LitUK test are far from ideal; and we have discussed that many times. This is not the place to go over all that yet again.

[Richard W]

So, pray tell, how did Blair and Brown open the floodgates?

Except for welfare, Poles were given the same rights as Germans. Restrictions could have been maintained until after their term of office.

Really, Richard, I'm surprised that you have fallen for the myth of EEA nationals flooding into the UK and immediately being given bucket loads of state money and council houses!!

I was referring to restrictions on entering to work, such as were subsequently imposed on Bulgarians and Romanians.

[Richard W]

I'm not sure of the final effectiveness of the 'primary purpose' rule in keeping out South Asians husbands of British citizens. Some people certainly seem to think it was still effective.

It was certainly effective in stopping many genuine couples from living together in the UK, regardless of the nationality of the foreign spouse.

I understood that at the end, a child born of the marriage was accepted as evidence that the primary purpose was not entry to the UK. That significantly reduces the effectiveness of the rule when the mother has access to the NHS and a supportive family in the UK.

[Richard W]

What UKIP propose isn't making the test harder; it's moving it forward from ILR to the initial visa stage.

What level of English is 'fluent'? Is it B1, or is it C1?

[Jay Sata]

7by7 misses the point about controls on immigration.

Blair and Brown allowed free reign to mass access to the UK.

During the same period where several million entered the country the Labour government gave no thought to where these people would live.

The same with schools and hospitals.

The infrastructure needs to be in place if you plan to accommodate large numbers of immigrants.

We now have a scenario where many poorly educated migrants are often working below the minimum wage and living in terrible cramped conditions.

When you go to a supermarket take a look at the guys working in the car washes. Until a decade ago only auto car washes existed.

Is that the sort of jobs we want to offer?

Edited December 27, 2014 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

Mr, Sata, instead of making ridiculous posts like the above which only display your ignorance; why not make an actual comment on the primary purpose rule; if you know what it is (hint; read post 2.)

At least your ignorance of UK immigration in this topic is merely a source of amusement; unlike in other topics where people ask for advice on UK visa applications and you give ignorant replies which, if followed, would result in a refusal and loss of the visa fee and associated costs; an amount which could be above £1000!

You are very quick to chastise others when you disagree with their advice; yet never apologise on the many, many occasions when you have been proven to have definitely given advice which is completely wrong and would be disastrous if followed. Why is that?