Final-2

An Insight in United Kingdom’s spousal visa cases: why the
courtallows leaveto remainin certainappeal cases and why it
refuses to grant it in the others?
Submitted by,
Erum Khatoon
A dissertationsubmitted as per the requirements of Teesside
University for the degree of LLM Master of Laws (General)
30th
August, 2016

Declaration
I hereby make a declaration that this work is my own and has not been submitted for any other
degree/course;also, thatIhave followedthe University’sprescribed word limit for LLMdegree and
that I have given due credit to the authors whose work I have quoted.

Acknowledgements
My gratitude and regards go out to all the lecturers who humbly gave their time to me and guided
me in big things and small. Especially Ma’am Judith Beadle for supervising my area of research,
Ma’am Tenny Cotton and Ma’am Angela King. I am thankful to my parents as well for the moral
support they provided me and for believing in me always.

Contents
Declaration
Acknowledgements
Table of cases
Table of Legislation
Foreword
Objective
Introduction
ChapterI
JusMatrimonii
Home Secretary- made laws
Marriage Act 1949
ProtectiongrantedbyArticle 8of EuropeanConventionof HumanRights
ChapterII
Sham/bogusmarriages
The test fora genuine arrangedmarriage
Proof of the primarypurpose of marriage
Historical anti-discriminatoryjudgmentof 1985
Perhapsyourspouse isa foreignspy!
Risksto the tradition,race and economyof the Great Britain
ChapterIII
Case Laws
Placingtime limitstomarryinvisitvisas
The role of age in forcedmarriages
Importance of English language inBritain
Article 12 of the EuropeanConventionof HumanRightsandthe language test
Bibliography
Appendix

Foreword
A developmentinthe UnitedKingdom’sImmigrationPolicypostBrexitisdue totake place inthe
comingmonths1
and thiscurrentgap inthe legal positionof the immigrantpopulation,letitbe EEA
memberresidentsorthe non-EEA immigrants,addedwithanuncertaintyof whatimmigrationrules
the newTories2
whoemerge totake charge are goingtodesignforthe whole Britain,isseething3
for
everyone whohave towaitforthe invokingof Article 504
of the LisbonTreaty5
.
Anyhow,itcan reasonablybe expectedthatthe EuropeantreatiesshallcontinuetoapplytoUK for
the nexttwoyears6
.Until,accordingto the procedure settherein,the EuropeanCouncil receives
notificationof leaveunderArticle50from the Governmentof UnitedKingdom, theyreachan
agreementof withdrawal prescribingthe termsof relationshipwithUnitedKingdomafteritleaves
the Unionin accordance withArticle 218(3) of the treatyon the functioningof EuropeanUnion7
,the
EuropeanParliamentconsentingtothe agreementandthe council concludingitonbehalf of the
Union.But if the newgovernmentdecidestodawdle onfilinganinvokingof Article508
thenthe
possibilityof the 2 yearsprocedure maynotarise soon.
1 Heather Stewart, Rowena Mason and Rajeev Sial,‘David Cameroon resigns after UK votes to leaveEuropean
Union’ The Guardian Fri 24th June, 2016 www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/david-cameroon-resigns-
after-uk-votes-to-leave-european-union accessed 3rd July,2016
2 Zack Beauchamp, ‘Brexit has thrown the UK’s two major parties into civil war’Vox World 30th June, 2016
www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064972/brexit-labour-tories-corbyn-johnson accessed 3rd July,2016
3 ibid
4 Dylan Matthews, ‘Bracksies:how Brexit could windup not actually happening’,Vox policy and politics25 th
June, 2016 www.vox.com/2016/6/25/12031254/no-brexit-article-50 accessed 3rd July,2016
5 Article50 (text)
i.Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordancewith its own constitutional
requirements.
ii.A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the lightof
the guidelines provided by the European Council,the Union shall negotiateand concludean agreement with
that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal,takingaccountof the framework for its future
relationship with the Union. That agreement shall benegotiated in accordancewith Article 218(3) of the
Treaty on the Functioningof the European Union. It shall beconcluded on behalf of the Union by the Council,
actingby a qualified majority,after obtainingthe consent of the European Parliament.
iii.The Treaties shall ceaseto apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal
agreement or, failingthat,two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2,unless the European
Council,in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
iv.For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing
the withdrawingMember State shall notparticipatein the discussionsof the European Council or Council or in
decisions concerningit.
A qualified majority shall bedefined in accordancewith Article238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioningof
the European Union.
v. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join,its request shall besubjectto the procedure
referred to in Article49.
6 ibid
7 Article218(3) The Commission,or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy,
shall submitrecommendations to the Council,which shall adopta decision authorisingthe opening of
negotiations and,depending on the subjectof the agreement envisaged, nominatingthe Union negotiator or
the head of the Union's negotiating team.
8 Matthews (n.4)

However,the questionof “the statusof immigrantpopulationfromEU”will be one of the prime
concernsduringthe negotiationsof the termsandconditionsforUKto leave,9
althoughthe German
ChancellorAngelaMerkel hasmade a clarificationof the issue bystatingthatthere will be nocherry-
pickingforUnitedKingdomoutof the four fundamental freedomsof movementof people,goods,
servicesandcapital10
.Anotherimportantissuetodeal withisthatof the non-EUmigrantswhichwill
alsobe facedbyBritainunderthe newTory leadership.
9 Jack Blanchard,‘Shaken David Cameroon admits sorrowand regret at wounding final EUsummit’ The Mirror
28 June, 2016 www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shaken-david-cameroon-admits-sorrow-8304930 accessed
28th June, 2016
10 ibid

Objective
Focusingonthe questionof marriedcitizenswantingtobring/keeptheirspouseswiththemin
UnitedKingdom,the authorwouldlike totouchonthe differentissuestheyface inthe processof
obtainingaspousal visa.
The nature of thisissue issuchthat it givesrise tothe rightsof three entitiesnamely,the non-
citizen,whointendstoenjoyhis/her marriedlife withtheirspouseinUK,oftenreferredtoas‘the
other’incase laws;the Britishcitizen,whowantstoexercisehis/herrighttomarry and live withthe
personof his/herchoice in theirhome countryandthe public,whose economicwellbeing,safety
and securityissuesare the responsibilityof the home secretary.
One Article of EuropeanConventionof HumanRightsthathas a prime role andisrelieduponbythe
partiesonce theiror theirspouse’svisaapplicationisrejectedisthe Article8of the Convention.Itis
the right to respectforthe private andfamilylife,homeandcorrespondence.There isalongdebate
on howA.8 shouldbe appliedinimmigrationcasesandthe authorwouldlike toshedalightonthe
pros andcons of doingso.
As the ImmigrationRulesmade bythe Home Secretaryare subjecttofrequentchange,the needand
hence the applicabilityof constantlyreliable judicial testsfoundinthe case law andfollowedtime
and againhence reachingthe title of “precedent”have increased.Suchprecedentsensure thatthere
isample reasoningbehindthe refusal/allowingof entrytoapplicantsandluckilyitisavailable
throughoutthe historyof immigrationlawsof UnitedKingdomthoughafew of these precedents
have alwaysbeenregardedasauthorityandthose shall be mentionedinthiswriting.The author
intendsthisdissertationtobe ananalysisof the literarycommentsonthe reasoningof the courtsin
thisarea.

Introduction
‘When People’slove is divided by law,it is the law thatneedsto change’- DavidCameroon11
A studydone bythe UnitedKingdomHome Office12
showedthatthe largestcategoryof immigrants
to the UnitedKingdomwere those whohadappliedforspousal visa(40% of total applicantsof 2009)
but thisareais still seenasunderresearchedwithafocusonlyonthe most popularmigrant
countries.13
Inthe restof the Europe,(NetherlandsandDenmarkprimarily) due toaconsiderable
rise inpublicattention,the migrationruleshave beenmade stricter.14
Whileinthe UnitedKingdom,
the ruleshave neverbeenstatic.Forspousescomingfromnon-Englishspeakingcountriesmarriage
isthe easyroute butat the same time,Englishlanguage testingandotherrequirementsserve tobe
the barriersplacedto limitthe influxof the migrantpopulation.Inthe Government’sstudyitwas
foundthat 60% of the migrants to the UnitedKingdomare wiveswhile the total numberof
immigrantsonmarriage visaare as follows.15
India (8,865)
Pakistan (7,050)
Philippines (3,220)
Bangladesh (2,880)
SouthAfrica (2,515))
China (2,455)
USA (1,880)
Nigeria (1,840)
Turkey (1,735)
Ghana (1,520)
Thailand (1,190)
Zimbabwe (1,175)
Australia (1,175)
11 Antonia Molloy,‘Gay marriage:'When people's love is divided by law, itis the law that needs to change,'
says PMas firstsame-sex couples tie knot’, INDEPENDENT Saturday 29 March 2014 <
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/first-gay-marriages-when-peoples-love-is-divided-by-
law-it-is-the-law-that-needs-to-change-9223171.html>accessed 31-07-2016
12 KatharineCharsley,NicholasVan Hear,Michaela Benson and Brooke Storer-Church, ‘Marriage-related
migration to the UK’ Home OfficeAug 2001, International Migration Review, volume 46, 2012
13 Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2007) ‘Transnational lives,transnational marriages’ Global Networks 7 (3): pp.271–88.
14 Jessica Elgot,‘Draft EU rules could tighten migration loopholefor foreign-born spouses,’16th Feb, 2016 The
Guardian,<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/16/immigration-loophole-for-foreign-born-
spouses-could-close-under-draft-eu-rules>
15 Graph obtained from KatharineCharsley,Nicholas Van Hear,Michaela Benson and Brooke Storer-Church,
‘Marriage-related migration to the UK’ Home OfficeAug 2001, International Migration Review, volume 46,
2012

The post WorldWar IIBritisheconomyhadgenerouslyinvitedmigrantsfromthe Commonwealth
countriesforlabourpurposesandsince thena trendinmigratingtothe UnitedKingdomhasbeen
popularinSouthAsia.Initiallythe migrantsweremale buttheytheninvitedtheirfamiliestojoinand
hence familymigrationtookplace inlarge numbers.16
In1962, the Parliamentof the United
Kingdom,throughlegislatingthe CommonwealthImmigrantsAct196217
, limitedthe numberof
migrantsto those whoheldemploymentvouchersgrantedbythe government.The law wasrevised
in1968. A newlawcame inforce,the ImmigrationActin197118
and mostof the studydone inthis
dissertationisrelevanttothisAct.
16 ibid pg. 7
17 Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962 <
http://web.archive.org/web/20110927012831/http://www.britishcitizen.info/CIA1962.pdf>
18 Immigration Act 1971 < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/pdfs/ukpga_19710077_en.pdf>

Chapter I
The right to marry andfounda familyisa universallyrecognizedrightandthe institutionof Marriage
inBritainhas beenrecognizedas“vital andvirtuous”inupholdingthe moralsbythe British
Conservatives.19
ButtoCharsley,20
itisan equallybigchallenge forthe countryas39% of all the
applicationsforsettlementinthe UnitedKingdomin2009 were spousal visaapplications.Inthis
chapterthe authoraimsto enlistthe mainlawsgoverningthe regulationof marriagesand
immigrationcontrol inthe UnitedKingdom.
Jus Matrimonii
Article 12 of the EuropeanConventionof HumanRightsECHRpointsoutthat marriage is a rightof
everymanand womanof marriageable age,21
butalsomentionsthatthisrightshouldbe exercised
inaccordance withthe lawsof the countryinwhichthe manand womanhappenstoreside.This
rightwas givenadomesticeffectinUnitedKingdomthroughthe HumanRightsAct1998.
There istraditionallyadebate of the citizen’srighttomarryby choice and the government’s
authoritytocontrol immigration.Strangely,Article12of ECHR couldnot outlaw the government’s
policiesmade tolimitthe numberof spousal visasgrantedeveryyear.A weightystrategyof the
Governmentinordertolimitthe rightto marry isby outlawingForcedMarriages.
Section120, 121 of the Antisocial behavior,crime andpolicingAct2014 has made it a criminal
offence to,
“take someone overseastoforce themtomarry (whetherornotthe forcedmarriage takesplace);
to marry someone wholacksthe mental capacitytoconsentto the marriage (whetherthey’re
pressuredtoor not).”
A force marriage ispunishable by7years imprisonment.22
Butanarrangedmarriage hasa different
standinginlaw.There hasbeenofficial clarificationon the definitioninthe followingwords,
“There is a clear distinction between a forced marriageand an arranged marriage.In
arranged marriages,thefamiliesof both spousestakea leading role in arranging the
marriagebutthe choice whetheror notto acceptthe arrangementremainswith the
prospectivespouses.In forced marriages,oneorboth spousesdo not(or,in the case of some
vulnerableadults,cannot) consentto themarriageand duressis involved.Duresscan include
physical,psychological,financial,sexualand emotionalpressure.”23
Thisdistinctionisprime where the state wishestosave theircitizensfromexploitationaswas
19 Richard Hayton, ‘Cameronite conservatismand the politics of marriageunder the United Kingdom coalition
Government’ Families,relationship,societies vol.4 no. 1 151-6
20 KatharineCharsley & Michaela Benson,‘Marriages of Convenience, and Inconvenient Marriages:Regulating
Spousal Migration to Britain’ regulatingspousal migration to Britain.Journal of Immigration,Asylumand
Nationality Law,26(1), 10-26
21 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in art.12 reads: "Men and women of marriageableagehave
the right to marry and to found a family,accordingto the national laws governingthe exerciseof this right"
22 David Pocklington,‘Forced marriageoutlawed in England and Wales’17th June 2014
www.lawandreligionuk.com accessed 6th Aug, 2016
23 PartTwo of the Department of Financeand Personnel’s “The Right to Choose: Statutory guidancefor dealing
with forced marriage”is issued as statutory guidanceunder paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 to the Forced
Marriage(Civil Protection) Act 2007.

witnessedinthe case of Dr. HumairaAbedin24
whowastakentoBangladeshbyherparentsand kept
lockedintheirhome forfourmonthseventuallyshe wasmarriedtoa man that herparentschose
for her.By helpof herfriendsshe informedthe police inthe UnitedKingdom.She wastrackeddown
by Bangladeshi police andreturnedtothe UnitedKingdom.
Although,thislawhasitsapplicationbutinexceptional cases25
itisseenaspaternalismandundue
protectivenessonthe partof the State.In the commentariesof Blackstone26
itisfoundthatthe legal
conceptof womenasdisabledcitizens27
hadenabledthe State totake charge of decidingthe legal
mattersfor women.
It ison the partiesto give consenttomarriage (asa marriage withoutconsentisvoidable underthe
UK law28
) but itis onthe State to decide the capacityof partiestomarry29
as well asto set the
formalitiesforthe marriage ceremony.30
The issue of marriage is furthercomplicatedif itinvolvesaforeignspouse becauseinadditiontothe
presentlaws,the Immigrationruleswouldcome intoplay.The grantof visascome withtheirown
conditionsandprohibitionsandthe shunnerof lawscannotclaimprotectionunderthe same.Thisis
whyonce a claimantoverstaysorbreachesanyotherconditionof the residence permit,he/she
wouldlose the empathyof the officials.If the offenderthenmarriesaBritishcitizen,how hiscase is
dealtwithwoulddependonhisindividual circumstances.Butevenforthe foreignspouseswhohave
not breachedanyrule,itisthe dutyof Home Secretarytolay downconditionsonthe fulfilmentof
which,theywill be grantedleave toenterUnitedKingdom.
In 2012, the minimumincome thresholdforaBritishCitizenwantingtobringina spouse wassetby
the Home Office at £ 18,600 or cash savingsof at least£ 62,500. The sumwas subjecttoincrease by
£ 3,800 for one childand £ 2,400 for eachadditional child31
these sumswerealreadyunderastrong
publicopposition32
andanynewreformsmayresultina greateroppositionbythe publicbutthe
purpose of settingan income thresholdwastomake sure that the familywouldnotbecome a
burdenonthe economybyseekingaccesstopublicfunds.The importance of earninghasbeenheld
to be evenmore thanthe nationalityof the personsinthe UnitedKingdom.Aswasseenin the case
of McCarthy33
the womanhavingdual BritishandIrishnationalitytriedtoinvite herhusbandtothe
UnitedKingdominthe exerciseof hertreatyrights.She claimedthatbeingIrishshe couldbringher
familytothe countrybut the Court of Appeal lookedintoherfinancialpositiontofindoutthatshe
had alwaysreliedonthe benefitsshe receivedfromthe State andhadneverworkedinBritaindue to
24 Aidan Jones, ‘Doctor held captivein Bangladesh was bound and drugged, court told’ 20th Dec. 2008 The
Guardian < https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/20/forced-marriage-case>
25 Natasha Carver,‘For her protection and benefit’: the regulation of marriagerelated migration to the UK 26-
04-2016,Ethnic and racial studies,2016 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2016.1171369>
26 W. Blackstone,‘Commentaries on the laws of England’1765-69 <www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-
115.htm>
27 Accordingto the British Nationality and the Status of Aliens Act 1870/ 1914, Section 17,a person who was
not legally disabled could haveaccess to naturalisation,renouncement and transmission of his British
nationality.The term “disabled”was defined to includeinfant,lunatic,idiot,or a married woman. This lawwas
repealed in 1949.
28 Section 12 Matrimonial Causes Act1973
29 Hamer v United Kingdom (1979) 24 DR 5; (1979) 4 EHRR 139 This caseset the standard thatthe National law
will setthe rules for capacity to marry and other formalities.
30 ibid
31 David Millward,‘PleaseTheresa May relax the rules for spousevisas and stop tearinglovingfamilies apart’
The Telegraph 19th July, 2016 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/Please-Theresa-May-relax-the-rules
for-spouse-visas-and-stop-te/ accessed 22nd July, 2016
32 ibid
33 McCarthy v United Kingdom (CaseC-434/09)

whichshe couldnot be consideredaqualifiedpersonunderArticle7Directive 2004/ 38/ EC and
Regulation6I (EEA) R 2006. To Carver,34
the minimumIncome thresholdtoinviteapartnerfrom
overseashasleftthe womenandethnicminoritiesas“legallydisabled.”
The costs of visarenewalsandextensionsare alsoseenbyKofman35
asunjustlyhighandonerous.
Theywere said(inKofman’sreport) tobe a hurdle ingettingthe couple tosave moneyfortheir
future or spendonchildcare or children’seducationorontheirownlanguage classes.
Home Secretary-made laws
‘The Immigration Act1971 is nowmore than forty yearsold, and it hasnot aged well. It is widely
acknowledged to beill-adapted to the mounting scaleand complexity of the problemsassociated
with immigration control.’36
Sections1 (4)37
and 3 (2)38
of the ImmigrationAct1971, have authorizedthe Secretaryof the State
for the home departmenttomake rulesthatshall be followedasthe guidingprinciplesindeciding
the grant or refusal of rightto enteror live inUnitedKingdomforthose whodonotnaturallyhave a
rightto abode in the country.The status of these rulesisthatof “administrativepolicy”,though
these are presentedbefore the Parliamentbutthese are notActsof the Parliament.The housesonly
have a right of negative resolutionwithin40daysof the presentationof changestothem.Once the
Membersof Parliamenthave expressedtheirdissent,the Secretaryof the State maysoonmake the
requiredchangestothe proposedrules.39
Thisleavesthe Secretaryof State withawide discretion
withregardto the rulesaswell asthe timingsof theircominginforce.40
34 Carver (n-) pg. 13
35 Eleonore Kofman, ‘Settling in’2015 European fund for integration < http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/Settling-In-research-report-9795c1.pdf>pg. 106
36 Introduction by Lord Sumption to the decision of the cases, R (on the application of New London College
Limited) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) R (on the application of West
London Vocational TrainingCollege) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
37 “1 (4) The rules laid down by the Secretary of this State as to the practiceto be followed in the
administration of this Act for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons not having
the right of abode shall includeprovision for admitting (in such cases and subjectto such restrictions asmaybe
provided by the rules,and subjector not to conditions as to length of stay or otherwise) persons coming for
the purpose of taking employment, or for purposes of study, or as visitors,or as dependents of persons
lawfully in or entering the United Kingdom.”
38 3 (2) The Secretary of States shall fromtime to time (and as soon as maybe) lay before Parliament
statements of the rules,or of any changes in the rules,laid down by him as to the practiceto be followed in
the administration of this Actfor regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons required
by this Act to have leave to enter, including any rules as to the period for which leave is to be given and the
conditions to be attached in different circumstances;and section1(4) above shall notbe taken to require
uniform provision to be made by the rules as regards admission of persons for a purposeor in a capacity
specified in section 1(4) (and in particular,for this as well as other purposes of this Act, accountmaybe taken
of citizenship or nationality).
If a statement laid beforeeither House of Parliamentunder this subsection is disapproved by a resolution of
that House passed within the period of forty days beginning with the date of laying (and exclusiveof any
period during which Parliamentis dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses areadjourned for more
than four days),then the Secretary of State shall as soon as maybemake such changes or further changes in
the rules as appear to him to be required in the circumstances,so thatthe statement of those changes be laid
before Parliamentatlatestby the end of the period of forty days beginning with the date of the resolution
(but exclusiveas aforesaid).
39 See Appendix
40 MO (Nigeria) v Sec of State for the Home Department [2009] 1 WLR 1230 at [34] per Lord Brown of Eaton-
under-Heywood, with whom the other lawlords agreed.

Anotheraspectof these regulationsisthe frequencywithwhichtheyare changed. Thoughthe
purpose of these changesistokeepthe law at par withthe currentimmigrationscenariosothatthe
immigrationofficerscouldtackle theirdailytaskswithefficiencyandeffectiveness,adrawbackof
too manyruleswithregularchangesare a cause of publicunease anda continuousstresstothose
whoare directlyeffectedbythem.Kofman41
hadfoundthatImmigrationlawsof the United
Kingdombeingvast,complexandever-changingare areasonof stressspurredby the insecurityand
uncertaintyof the future amongthe immigrantpopulation.Womenbeingmore vulnerable are
hence more affectedbythe “residencyrequirements,probationperiods,norecourse provisions,
financial surcharges,andthresholds.”
Marriage Act 1949
Validmarriagesare of the two typesasper the law of Englandinthe Marriage Act 1949. The firstis
the one42
solemnisedinthe AnglicanChurchof Englandaccordingtothe ecclesiastical procedureof
marriage whichisaccompaniedbythe grant of Archbishop’s/commonlicensestothe parties.The
other43
is the one solemnisedandlicensedbythe authorityof certificate of the superintendent
registrar.The religiousceremonymaytake place earlierorafterthe licensingof the registrar.The
secondismore relevanttothe immigrantmarriagesthatwouldbe discussedhere.
People wantingtomarryinthe UnitedKingdomhave to show theirrightto reside inthe country.
Those whocannot showproof of residence wouldneedaCertificate of approval of the Secretaryof
the State and where the grant of the certificate isdenied,people take the route of Article 8of the
Europeanconventionof humanrights.
Protectiongranted by Article 844
of European ConventionofHuman Rights
“All individualswithin the jurisdiction of United Kingdom,irrespectiveof their right to vote,enjoy the
protection of convention rightsasjudicially determined”45
The right to respectforprivate andfamilylife,homeandcorrespondence isabasictreatyright
ensuredtoall EuropeanCitizensbyvirtue of the EuropeanConventionof HumanRights.The
exercise of treatyrightsinthe UnitedKingdombyimmigrantsislikeabattle betweenHumanrights
and the autonomyof the State todecide onwhichindividualstoletintothe country.46
The
turbulence causedbythisphenomenonisaresultof the sovereigntyof the State andan expectation
of submissiontothe national lawsbyitssubjectsbutthe communitylawsandthe EuropeanRights
41 Kofman (n-) pg. 106
42 PartII of MarriageAct 1949
43 PartIII of Marriages Act1949
44 Article8 ECHR – Right to respect for privateand family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his privateand family life,his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall beno interference by a public authority with the exerciseof this right except such as is in
accordancewith the lawand is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security,public
safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals,or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
45 Ghaidan v. Godin- Mendoza [2004] 2 AC 557
46 Daniel Thym, ‘Respect for privateand family lifeunder Article8 ECHR in immigration cases:a human rightto
regularizeillegal stay?’,ICLQ vol. 57, January 2008 pp. 87-112

whichare available forthe aidof the individual strengthenthe positionof the individual againstthe
immigrationauthorities.
The protectionof “familylife”fromthe interference of State officialsisthe heartof Article 847
with
the onlyexceptionsbeingthatthe spouse bringswithhim/herathreatof crime or disorder
(national security)48
,disease orimmorality(publicsafety),orincase of conflictof interesthe isin
such a positionthatotherpeople’srightsmightbe affectedbyhispresence inthe country(economic
well-being).
The spouse whoholdsBritishcitizenshipcanexercise his/herrightunderthisArticleandthougha
foreignnational/aliendoesnothave aright to enteror remaininUnitedKingdomunderthe ECHR,
he/she couldstill enjoythe companyof theirspouse inUnitedKingdomif the courtfindsitto be
reasonable intheircase.Article 8,itwasallegedinthe Abdulazizcase49
impliestwoformsof
obligationsonthe state withrespectof the parties,the firstisapositive obligationwhichistoshow
that the privacyof the familyisrespectedbyallowingthe spousestoreunite,andthe otheristhe
negative obligationmeanttostopthe authoritiesfromexpellingaspouse andhence from
interferingintheirpersonal livesbutthe majorityhadruledthatdue to laterdevelopments,the
bothrightshave beenmergedtogether.
However,itisnota guarantee andmerelyarightwhichmeansthat the court may not accept the
pleaat all and ask the alientoleave the state andthe Britishnational togo withthemif theywantto
continue theirrelationshipinthe formof livingtogether.Thisisamuch debatedtopicasthe
requisitesforthe grantof residence permitinUnitedKingdomare notsomethingall spousescould
fulfil.50
A testwas devisedinRazgar’scase51
todecide whetherthe claimant’sArticle8rightsare being
violatedbythe actionsof the State and whetherthe state isjustifiedinitsactions,the five stages/
questionsof the case were,
i) “Is the secretaryof the State’srefusal amountingtoa publicauthority’sinterference inthe rightto
private or familylifeof the applicant?
ii) If yes,isthe interferenceof sucha degree thatitsconsequenceswouldengage the article 8rights
of the applicant?
iii) if yes,isthe interferenceaccordedbylaw?
iv) if yes,isthe interferenceneededbythe State of the democraticcountryforupholdingnational
security,publicsafety,orthe economicwell-beingof the country,forpreventingdisorderandcrime,
for the protectionof healthandmoralsof the publicor for the protectionof the rightsandfreedoms
of others(i.e.the non-nationalsof the UnitedKingdom.)?
47 See Above
48 The security serviceAct 1989 defines national security as protection from the ‘actions’based on an intention
to destroy parliamentary democracy through political,industrial or any violentmeans and also a sa feguard
from the threats of terrorism,sabotageor spyingactivities.
49 Abdulazizv United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 471 pg. 68
50 Emily Churchill,‘Beingwith your foreign spouseis a right,not a privilege’14 June 2010 The Guardian UK <
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/14/foreign-spouse-language-tests-immigration-
system> accessed 2nd Aug, 2016
51 Regina (on the application of Razgar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 2 A.C. 368, para.
17

v) if yes,isthe interference proportionate(balanced) tothe legitimatepublicendsoughttobe
achieved?”
The appellate immigrationAuthoritywasurgedinthe Huang’scase52
that while decidingthe
immigrationcasestheyshouldaskif the decisionof the EntryOfficer,inwhichhe/she refusedentry,
was unlawful orincompatibletothe Conventional humanrightsof the applicant;or,if the decision
was incompatible withconventionbutstill lawful?The decisionshouldbe reversedonlyincases
where itisagainstthe “law”and nototherwise.Thisishow the State shouldfindabalance between
itsresponsibilitiestowardsthe communityandthe rightsof the individuals.The fourquestions
formedbyLord BinghaminQuila’scase whichwere framedbyhiminHuang’scase and followed
againby him(knownasthe Huangquestions) are,53
i) “Is the legislative objective sufficientlyimportanttojustifylimitingafundamental right?
ii) Are the measureswhichhave beendesignedtomeetitrationallyconnectedtoit?
iii) Are theynomore than necessarytoaccomplishit?
iv) Do theystrike a fairbalance betweenthe rightsof the individual andinterestsof the
community?”
Thistestplacesthe burdenof proof onthe defendantwhohastoshow the legalityof the
interference thatthe State hasto do inthe rightsof the claimants.
The interpretationof the rightsinArticle 8is done more liberallybysome otherjurisdictionsto
whichitis applied.Inthe case of RodriguesDaSilva& Hoogkamerv the Netherlands54
the protection
of familylifeinanuclearfamily(spousesantheirminorchildren) wasupheldevenafterthe mother
was divorcedfromthe fatherof the child.The BrazilianwomanhadenteredNetherlandsonatourist
visawhenshe was22 years oldin1994 she overstayedandmarriedaDutchman,she hada daughter
fromthe relationship,the marriage broke downin4yearsand the fatherwonthe legal battle over
childcustody.Althoughthe womanhadnoothertiesinthe country andshe herself livedinthe
countryin the positionof shunningthe law forthe lastfouryearsbut the court upheldher
‘dependencywithoutcustody’rightsandalsogave hera rightto regularise herillegal stay.55
52 Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKHL 11 para.11 & 13
53 Lord Bingham in Quila’s case[2011] UKSC on pg. 45
54 ECTHR, Judgment of 31st Jan. 2006, No 50435/99
55 ibid para.43

Chapter II
Every applicantof spousal visahashis/her owncircumstancesbutthe officialsof a State woulddo
theirlevel besttocreate categoriesinwhichthe applicantsare putsothat theycouldbe dealtwith
speedilyandintheirbestinterests.InthischapterI intendtodeal withthe judiciallydetermined
testsfor the detectionanddifferentiationof genuine andfake applicationsandthe historic
judgmentthatensuredthe rightsof genuine applicantsare protected. Somealternativeviewsare
alsoadded inthischapter to show whythe strict exercise of authoritybythe Secretaryof the State
couldactuallybe for the largergoodof the Britishsociety.
Sham/ Bogus marriages56
There were 1,891 reportsof suspiciousmarriagesreceivedbythe Home office inthe United
Kingdomin2012.57
Alsoknownas the marriagesof convenience itisdefinedbythe Council of
Ministersof the EuropeanUnionin1997 as, “a marriage concludedwiththe sole aimof
circumventingthe rulesonentryandresidence.”58
Thisisanimportantarea of law equallyingrained
inMarriage lawsand Immigrationlaws.The legislation hasclearlyplacedaban onit, butthe Article
8 of the EuropeanConventionof HumanRightsservesasa loophole forthose whointendtotake
advantage of it.Due to the strictermarriage migrationrules,manypeoplealsohadtorelyon the
SurrinderSingh59
route tolive withthe partnerof theirchoice (practice of movingtoanother
Europeancountryundertheirtreatyrightsand takingtheirspouse withthem).Thoughthatroute
alsohas itscriticisminthe Europeancommunityasa cause of reverse discrimination.60
The
EuropeanUnionhad made effortstocombat thistype of marriagesandin a EuropeanCouncil
Resolution itwasdefinedas,61
“a marriage concludedbetweennational of amemberstate ora third countrynational,withthe sole
aimof circumventingthe rulesonentryandresidence of thirdcountrynationalsandobtainingfor
the thirdcountry national aresidence permitorauthoritytoreside inamemberstate.”
56 Accordingto sections 24, 24A Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,as amended by section 55 of the
Immigration Act 2014, a sham marriageor civil partnership isonein which:
one or both of the parties is nota British citizen or an EEA or Swiss national,
there is no genuine relationship between the parties,
either or both of the parties enter into the marriageor civil partnership for the purposeof circumventing
(avoiding) UK immigration controls,includingunder the Immigration Rules or the Immigration (EEA)
Regulations of 2006.
57 Sham marriages and civil partnerships background information and proposed referral and investigation
scheme Home office November 2013 <
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/256257/Sham_Marriage_an
d_Civil_Partnerships.pdf>
58 Council Resolution 97/C 382/01 of 4 Dec. 1997 (Official Journal C 382 of 16.12.1997)
59 Jessica Elgot,‘Draft EU rules could tighten migration loopholefor foreign-born spouses,’16th Feb, 2016 The
Guardian,<https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/16/immigration-loophole-for-foreign-born-
spouses-could-close-under-draft-eu-rules>
60 As was seen in the caseof Morson and Jhanjan v. Netherlands [1982] ECR 3723 Surinamesecitizens who had
their children with a nationality of Netherlands, when they tried to exercise their rights under the community
lawthey were unableto invoke the same on the grounds that the children had never exercised their
community rights and hence, nor could they do the same.
61 EC Council Resolution 97/C382/01 of 4 December 1997

ThisresolutionwasgivenadomesticeffectbyenactingSection24of the Asylumand Immigration
Act 1999,
“a marriage (whetherornot void) —
(a) enteredintobetweenaperson(“A”) whoisneitheraBritishcitizennora national of an EEA
State otherthan the UnitedKingdomandanotherperson(whetherornotsuch a citizenor sucha
national);and
(b) enteredintobyA for the purpose of avoidingthe effectof one ormore provisionsof United
Kingdomimmigrationlaworthe immigrationrules.”
There isstill a conflictingviewof shammarriage withthe oldEnglishLaw’sconceptof marriage.As
was heldina 1983 case62
that underthe ecclesiastical conceptof marriage,once the partieshave
freelyconsentedtohavingone anotherasspouse andfulfilledthe necessaryobligationsof marriage,
any otherformof “mental reservations”and “private arrangements”forthe purpose of marriage
had no standinginlawandthat parties’reluctance toacceptsome or any of the marital obligations
wouldnotrenderthe marriage void.Butwhere the “sole purpose”of a marriage isto defraudthe
immigrationsystemandthe partieshave nointentionof livingtogetherotherwise(orafterthey
have receivedtheirresidencyrights) the Immigrationsystemwouldcome intoplay.Thisshowsthat
the dividinglinebetweenshamandforcedmarriagesisthe “free consent”of parties.Butthe
similarityisthatbothare treatedby the State as a criminal issue.Accordingtosection24 of the
ImmigrationandAsylumAct1999,63
marriage registrarsare expectedtoreportif theysuspectthata
marriage isnot genuine.Charsley64
hasreportedinherarticle thatin2012, the Marriage Registrars
were reportedtohave the guidance givenbythe Home office totake notice of factorssuch as the
lack of mutual knowledgebetweenthe parties,usingnotesforansweringquestionsabouteach
other,avoidingtoanswerquestionsrelatedtopersonal circumstances,inabilitytospeakthe
language of the spouse,amentionof a paymentmade tothe otherparty,avoidingtointeractwith
each otheror usinga thirdparty to do so.Weddingday isthe onlytime whenthe illegal immigrants
informthe Home Office of theirpresence atacertainplace in the countryand the immigration
control do not wantto letthisopportunitypasswithouttakingaction.The problemwiththe way
62 Vervaeke v Smith [1983] 1 AC 145 pg. 152
63 Reporting suspicious marriages
24. (1) Subsection (3) applies if—
(a) a superintendent registrar to whom a notice of marriagehas been given under section 27 of the Marriage
Act 1949,
(b) any other person who, under section 28(2) of that Act, has attested a declaration accompanyingsuch a
notice,
(c) a districtregistrar to whom a marriagenotice or an approved certificatehas been submitted under section
3 of the Marriage(Scotland) Act 1977, or
(d) a registrar or deputy registrar to whom notice has been given under section 13 of the Marriages (Ireland)
Act 1844 or section 4 of the MarriageLaw (Ireland) Amendment Act 1863,
has reasonablegrounds for suspectingthat the marriagewill bea sham marriage.
(2) Subsection (3) also applies if—
(a) a marriageis solemnized in the presence of a registrar of marriages or,in relation to Scotland,an
authorized registrar (within the meaning of the Act of 1977); and
(b) before, during or immediately after solemnization of the marriage,the registrar has reasonablegrounds for
suspectingthat the marriagewill be, or is,a sham marriage.
64 KatharineCharsley & Michaela Benson,‘Marriages of Convenience, and Inconvenient Marriages:Regulating
Spousal Migration to Britain’ regulatingspousal migration to Britain.Journal of Immigration,Asylumand
Nationality Law, 26(1),10-26

sham marriagesare dealtwithinthe countryis that incase a real/genuine marriage65
issuspected
by the police,theywouldnothesitate toarrestandhandcuff.Thiscouldcause an undue
embarrassmenttothe parties,especiallyif the ceremonyisheldinthe presence of theirrelatives.
The test for a genuine arranged marriage:
In February,1979 it wasreported66
thatvirginitytests(includinginternalexaminations) were done
on fiancée of aBritishNational (she wasaspousal visaapplicant) atHeathrow airportbya male
doctor.The replyof the Home Office wasa denial thatany internal test(toprove the absence of
pregnancy/childbirth) hadoccurredbut,theyadmittedthata cursory examinationwasheldto
establishthatthe womanwasa bona fide virginandalsothatshe had an optionof lettingafemale
doctor examine herinahospital.The doctorsat the airporthad lateradmittedthatthese testswere
routinelycarriedoutformanyyears.67
But that womanhad gone througha psychological trauma
afterwards(whichhadputeventhe marriage toa delay) andallegedthatat that time she wasnotin
a positionto give free consentasshe wastoo afraidthat a refusal wouldhave anegative impacton
herapplication.Wray68
has writtenthatthe testcouldofferlittle purposethanintimidation.While
Carver69
believesthatthese rulesare meanttoseta standard forarrange marriagesthatis too high
to prove the relationshipgenuine andalsocontainsracial andsexual undertones(asitwasdone only
on SouthAsianfiancéesandavirginitycheckcouldonlybe done onfemales) .Whetheraperson
chosesto marry a virgin or notis a decisiontoopersonal andsettingsucharequirementasa
national testtobringin a foreignspouse isanunwantedinterference inthe livesof peoplethat
wouldresultonlyinfrustrationandhatredtowardsthe officials.
Proof of the primary purpose of marriage:
Determiningthe primarypurposeof marriage wasthe nextjobof the Home office in1983. Rather
than whatshouldbe the purpose,thisrule outlineswhatshouldnotbe the basicreasonforthe
marriage and that isimmigrationtothe UnitedKingdomforthe foreignspouse.Sondhi70
has
analyzedanumberof questionsaskedtofiancésof female Britishcitizensduringvisainterviewsto
showthat there couldbe no rightanswerstothe questionsthatwere beingputtothe foreign
spouse.Forinstance,he saidthatthe inquiry,‘if yourfiancée didnotlive inthe UnitedKingdom,
wouldyoustill goto herhome to live?’isadouble edgedswordbecause a“no”wouldmeanthat
the purpose of the marriage was to geta UK visawhile a“yes”could be equallywrongespeciallyif it
isa traditionallyarrangedmarriage asthe Home Office mightcontendlater(afterrefusal togrant
visa) thatthe applicantlackedcredibility.Anotherquestionwasratherdirect,‘if youwere notable
to live withyourfiancée inthe UnitedKingdom, wouldyoustill marryher?’arefusal inreplytothis
questionwouldclearlyshowamotive toemigrate while a“yes”couldstill be usedagainsthim
especiallyif he wasnotfinanciallycapableof supportinghiswife.The thirdquery,‘if yourfamilyhad
askedyouto marry a local girl wouldyouhave done so?’isagainambiguousasto the purpose
behindit.A “no” wouldbe outrightwrongbuta “yes”couldmeanthat the nextquestionaskedto
the traditional manwouldbe,‘had yourparentsmade anyeffortsto findasuitable wife foryouin
65 “Sham Marriage”policestormreal wedding, Camden New Journal 7th November 2013
66 ‘Virginity tests on immigrants atHeathrow’, The Guardian 8th Feb, 1979
67 ‘I knew about virginity tests,says former minister’,The Guardian,2nd Feb 1979
68 Helena Wray,‘regulating marriagemigration into the UK: A stranger in the home’, 2011 Ashgate, MPG books
group UK. ISBN 9781409403395 (ebook)
70 RanjitSondhi (1987) Divided Families.British immigration Control in the Indian.Subcontinent. London:
Runnymede Trust. Spencer, Sarah (1995)

your home country?’
The problemswithhypothetical questionsledtotheirunpopularitywhileareasof explorationsuch
as future jobprospects,effortsmade inthe pastforoverseassettlements(otherthaninBritain),
were still heldasimportantqueries.
Questionsputtoa fiancé planningtomove tothe UnitedKingdomtojoinhiswife were alsomade
because of the popularnormin the AsianSub-continentaccordingtowhichthe bride movesin to
live withthe familyof the husbandandnotthe otherway around.Anapplicationinwhichthe
partieswouldselectnormsof theirlikingandconvenience (e.g.marryingbyparentschoice butnot
askingthe girl/expecthertocome totheircountry andlive withthem) wouldputthe genuineness
of marriage at question.71
Negative perceptionsaboutthe male spousal visawasalsofamouslylinkedtothe Indianconceptof
dowry(money/material benefitsexpectedasacustomby the girl’sfamilytogive tothe boy’sfamily
inmarriage) because menwere supposedlymarryingforeconomicreasonsratherthanlove.The
press72
had famouslycalleditas,“buyingabride.”
The primarypurpose rule wasabolishedin199773
the Labour GovernmentsHome secretaryJack
Straw hadsaid aboutthe rule,
"it is arbitrary,unfairand ineffectiveand haspenalized genuinecases,divided familiesand
unnecessarily increased theadministrativeburden on theimmigration system."
It was saidbyCarver74
inher essaythatthisrule was introducedtostopthe bogusimmigration
seekerfromenteringbutitendedupinblockingthe SouthAsiansfromcomingtothe United
Kingdom.
Historical anti-discriminatoryjudgmentof1985
As inthe 1985’s case of Abdulaziz75
the three women,whohadthe righttoremainindefinitelyinUK,
had marriednon-EEA membercountrycitizens(whowere fromTurkey,PortugalandPhilippines).
While discussingthe lawinthe case,it wasrecordedthat accordingto the 1982 ImmigrationRules,
the husbandor fiancé of a Britishnational inorderforhimto obtainentryclearance had to show
that the marriage was nota non-qualifyingone (i.e.the purposewasnotto obtainentryclearance,
the partieswantedtolive togetherpermanentlywith marriedstatusandthatthe partieshadmetin
person).The grantof clearance wouldresultinhisgettingatwelve months’visaatthe endof which
he may be grantedanothertwelve monthstayandat the endof the secondvisa,the time limit
mightbe removedfromhisstaythus makinghisleave toremainasindefinite (IDR).Nosuchrules
were laidforwivesorfiancéesof the male Britishnationalsmarryingforeignersandthisbecame the
groundof discriminationinthe case.Itwas acceptedbythe court that these clausesinthe law were
discriminatory.
The womenknewat the time of theirmarriagesthattheirhusbandswere notentitledtolive in
UnitedKingdom.One of the coupleshadnevercohabitedinthe UnitedKingdomandthe othertwo
knewof the weaknessesof the applicationsof theirspouseswell.ExceptbytheirmarriagestoBritish
Citizenstheyhadlittle toprove asone of themwas merelyavisitor,anotherwasoutof the country
while thisapplicationwasmade andthe thirdone had overstayedhisvisa.Butthe Immigrationrules
71 Roger Ballard,‘Migration and kinship’CambridgeUniversity press pg.219
72 ‘Scandal of the brides for sale’,Daily Mail 5th Aug, 1985
73 ‘Politics 97,Immigration rules relaxed,’BBC News 1997
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/06/0605/straw.shtml>
75 Abdulaziz,Cabales,and Balkandali v UK (Application nos.9214/80;9473/81;9474/81)

were alsostricterin1980’s76
forthe male spousesandit wasmeantto protectthe “domesticlabour
market”from the entryof foreignworkers(thoughthe menmightbe self employedaswell and
hence a source of creatingnewjobsforthe residents) butthe laws/policymakerschose toplaysafe.
The womenchallengedthe Immigrationlaw (theytookthe case toEuropeanCourt of Human Rights
as it wasa time priorto the creationof Human RightsAct 1998), twoof themallegedthattheyhave
beenraciallyandsexuallydiscriminatedagainstandone claimedthatshe hadbeendiscriminated
againston the groundsof birth(onlythose withaBritishparentcouldbringa non-Nationalhusband
inthe countryfor settlement).The allegationof discriminationonthe groundof sex wasacceptedby
the court but those onthe groundsof race and birthwere rejected.
One of the issuesthatarisesinsuchcases isthat the court supposesthata familylife alreadyexists
betweenthe partners77
the problemwiththispresuppositionisthatthe newlyweddedcoupleswho
have not cohabitedbefore marriage mayhave problemsinprovingthattheyhave afamilylife,it
wouldonlybe harderif the spouse iscomingfromoverseasandhence the burdenwouldbe onthe
partiestoshowthat “an insurmountable obstacle”existstotheirlivinginthe countryof the other
spouse.The partieshadsubmittedinAbdulazizCase thatthe rule requiringthe spousestohave met
before marriage isdiscriminatoryasthere are countrieswhere the cultural normsdonotallow the
spousestomix freelybefore marriage andinsome evenstrictersituationsitmightnotevenbe likely
to meetthe spouse before marriage e.g.Inthe Indiansub-continentwhere arrange marriagesare
the norm butthe court rejectedthispleaandupheldthe government’sstance thatthiswasdone for
the purpose of eradicatingbogusmarriagesandnotfor the purpose of eliminatingthe entryof new
Indianspousesfromthe country.
The presence of familylifewasacceptedunanimouslybythe courtin casesof all three women,the
violationof Article 8alongwithArticle 1478
wasacceptedbut onlyonthe ground of sexual
discrimination.The courtlaiddownthe rule thatfor a law/official practice tobe discriminatory,
there hasto be “objective andreasonable justification”inthe formof a proportional relationship
between“the meansemployedandthe aimssoughttobe realised.”Further,the courtruled79
that
Article 14 right hasto be pleadedinrelationtoanotherrightinthe Convention.Itisnotnecessaryto
showthat anotherrighthas beenviolated,amere fallingof the case inthe ambitof anotherright
wouldbe sufficient.Thisrightcouldbe exercisedonlyagainstthe State andpublicauthorities.80
76 “Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules” (HC 394) was applicableto all decisionstaken on or after 1st
March 1980. Rules were published in the White Paper of November 1979.
77 Marckx Judgment of 13th June 1979 series A no. 31 page 14 para 31
78 Article14 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this European Convention on Human Rights shall be
secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race,colour,language, religion,political or other
opinion,national or social origin,association with a national minority,property,birth or other status.
79 Although the application of Article14 does not necessarily presupposea breach [of the substantive
provisionsof the Convention and its Protocols] – and to this extent itis autonomous – there can be no room
for its application unlessthefacts at issuefall within the ambitof one or more of the rights and freedoms.
80 Human Rights Act 1998 Section 6 Acts of public authorities’states,
(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to actin a way which is incompatiblewith a Convention right.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an actif—
(a) as the resultof one or more provisionsof primary legislation,the authority could not have acted
differently; or
(b) in the caseof one or more provisionsof,or made under, primary legislation which cannotbe read or given
effect in a way which is compatiblewith the Convention rights,the authority was actingso as to give effect to
or enforce those provisions.
(3) In this section “public authority”includes—

Perhaps your spouse is a foreignspy!
The rulesagainstsexual discriminationlaiddowninthe Abdulazizcase are followedtill date. Butall
wouldnotsupportthe entrantson anti-discriminatorygrounds.Forinstance,Orgad81
,the writerof
'Love and War' thinksthatthe documentsforentryin a countryare as crucial for a terroristas his
weaponsandthisiswhythe issue of migrationisnosimple issue.82
He hasillustratedhisargumentin
a dramatizedpresentationof howhistorical figuresluredtheirforeignadmirersina“love trap” and
thenexploitedthembyeitherobtainingthe official secretstobe disclosedtothe enemyorfulfilled
otherpolitical orwar relatedpurposesof theircountry.KingHenryV marriedKathrine inorderto
expandandstrengthenhisholdof the Frenchterritoriesandhence exploitedher.83
Samsonfrom
Israel hadfalleninlove withDelilahanagentof Palestinewhohadanextraordinarybeautywhich
she usedto make himreveal hissecretsandthathad resultedinthe defeatof hisarmyand his
becomingcaptive tothe Palestinianforces.84
The Hollywoodmoviemade afterthe famousIan
Flemming's85
Novel 'FromRussiaWithLove'isa more modernexample of how womenare usedby
the enemytospy onimportantoffice holdersof acountry.86
The author believesthataromance of
thisnature couldonlybe an exploitationandinfiltrationof enemylinesandunderthe pretense of
love a secretagentisplantedinthe enemy'smidst.87
Aspreventiontothe enemy'sstrategytouse
womentowina war, the lawsbanningthe entryof familymembersof citizenscomingfromenemy
territoryare deemedjust.National securityissometimesantagonistictohumanrightsandas a
defense strategyIsraelhasbannedthe rightto"import"a familymemberinthe country88
(previouslyfromthe WestBankandGaza and now fromHigh RiskGroups).Thislaw has been
criticizedaslimitingthe righttorealize loveandtoestablishafamily.89
Butthe Acthas beenupheld
by the HigherCourtsof the countryat variousinstancesonthe groundthatin time of war itis just
natural for the warringStatescitizenstoact withhostilitiestowardsone anotherandalsoforthe
reasonthat the State is notlegallyboundtodistinguishbetweenanenemynationalwhoislikelyto
place a threat to the State and itscitizensandan enemynational whoisunlikelytoendangerthe
State.90
The citizensof Israel are incapable of bringingin(throughmarriage orotherwise) afamily
(a) a court or tribunal,and
(b) any person certain of whose functions arefunctions of a public nature,
but does not includeeither House of Parliamentor a person exercisingfunctions in connection with
proceedings in Parliament.
(4) F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(5) In relation to a particular act,a person is nota public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(b) if the
nature of the act is private.
(6)“An act” includes a failureto actbut does not includea failureto—
(a)introducein,or lay before, Parliamenta proposal for legislation;or
(b) make any primary legislation or remedial order.
81 Liav Orgad, ‘Love and War’: Family migration in the time of national emergency’ (2008) 23 (1) Georgetown
National Immigration Journal 85
82 ibid 85
83 ibid 89
84 ibid 90
85 Ian Flemming, ‘From Russia with love’ Published 2002 by Penguin Books (firstpublished 1957) ISBN
0142002070 (ISBN13:9780142002070)
86 Orgad (n-) 90
87 Orgad (n-) 85
88 The Citizenship and entry into Israel ActTemporary Order (No.2), 5765-2005
89 Orgad (n-) 98
90 Orgad (n-) 99

memberfromPalestinesolelyforthe reasonof anongoingwar betweenthe twocountriesthough
theyare free tomove outside the boundariesof Israel if theywanttolive withtheirPalestinian
partner.Otherthan beingunjust,Ifeel thislaw isineffective aswell forthe reasonthatthe carriers
of importantState informationcouldnotbe keptinside the countryatall timesespeciallyinthisday
and age and as soonas an official flytoanothercountry,the threatof potential leakage of
informationwill gooff withhim.
In viewof Immanuel Kant91
,itisthe rightof a strangerto be treatedwithhospitalitywhenhe arrives
ina foreignlandbutwarmakescitizen’sperspectiveshardandnarrow,to sucha degree thatthey
wouldstartto observe a whole nationasone entityandreducestheircapabilitytotreatall othersas
themselves.Whatitproducesisgeneralizations,biasesandstereotypes.Thoughsuchtreatment
accordingto Orgad isa violationtohumandignitysince the personsare treatedasobjectsrather
than humanbeings,butthisseemsto be a smallerconcerntohimas comparedto the concernfor
loyaltywiththe nation.AnindividualborninJapanbutlivinginthe USA duringWorldWar II92
would
be a classicexample of asuspiciousindividualbecause itcouldnotbe decidedwithwhomdoes his
loyaltiesrest?‘Butisthe loyaltystrongenoughtoturnresidentsintoanenemyaliens?’isan
unansweredquestion. Thoughsome writersthinkthata country’slawswill have tobe made stricter
if terrorismhastakenplace on itsown soil,93
makingfingerprintinginvisaapplications,surveillance
inbordercontrol,apprehension,detention,anddeportationpolicies,etc.procedural normsisasign
of internal presence of terrorisminacountry.
Risks to the traditions, race and economyof Great Britain
Collier94
(aUnitedKingdomGovernmentadvisor) inhisbookhasaddressedthe issueof “unabsorbed
migrants”as a threat to the societybecause if all the citizensbringtheirfamiliesfromforeign
countries,theywouldmake diasporas95
whichwouldoutnumberthe original (indigenous) residents
whomay become a minorityintheirowncountry.Immigrationwasseenbyhimasan attack on
National identityandisagainstthe conceptof keepingthe national culture alive.
However,the issue of marriage isnotlimitedtonon-whiteBritishmembersof the Britishsociety
bringinginspousesfromtheirnative lands,accordingtoShachar,96
the issue of non-white people
marryingthe white Britishisposedasa more seriousthreatto the national characterand attributes
(because of the greaterdifference inskincolour,andreligionof the former) asitisfearedthatthey
mighthave a greateralteringaffectonthe original Britishcharactersintheirdescendent
populations.Accordingtoher,97
a multi-cultural identityhasbeenformedoutof global interactions
91 Immanuel Kant, ‘Perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch’,1795 <
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm>
92 Orgad (n-) 110
93 Nazli Avdan, ‘Do asylumrecognition rates in Europe respond to transnational terrorism? The migration
security nexus revisited’. European Union Politics2014,Vol.15(4) 445–471
94 Paul Collier,‘Exodus:How migration is changingour world’Ed. 2013, Oxford University Press,USA (Oct.
2013) ISBN-13: 978-0195398656
95 he defined it as ‘the accumulated stock of unabsorbed migrants pg. 258
96 Ayelet Shachar,‘Multicultural Jurisdictions:Cultural Differences and Womens Rights’Cambridge University
Press 2001 <http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/00054715.pdf>
97 Shachar (n-) pg. 15

and the solutionistoaccept (at State level) the highlydynamicnature of these interactionstaking
place inthe worldtodayandto refuse (atindividuallevel) toletasingle institution either
governmentorlegislature the absolute powerof definingthe type of relationshipsthatpeoplecan
have witheachother,for the sake of the individuals.
There isa likelyeconomicfearwhichtriggersthe anti-immigrationsentimentinpeople asDavies98
has writteninhisarticle thatthe Brexitwasmore or lessledbythe feelingamongthe Britonsthat
the problemsof overcrowdinginthe National HealthServiceDoctor’ssurgeriesare due tothe
presence of immigrantsinthose placeswhileaccording tohimthe budgetsetfor the healthand
educationinthe UnitedKingdomisinaccordance withthe local populationsindifferentareasandif
the populationdecreases,the budgetwouldfall naturally.Moreover,the tax (nettax deductedfrom
income statement) submittedbythe immigrantpopulationplaysasignificantrole instrengthening
the fiscal positionof the country.The issue of unemploymentdue tothe presence of immigrant
workersisseenbyhim99
as totallythe opposite,jobswerecreateddue tothe presence of extra
worker’savailablebecause asnewjobsare createdeveryyearinthe UnitedKingdom, those are
eitherfilleddomesticallyorthroughhiringoverseasemployees,thisishow the unemploymentis
keptat 5% in the UnitedKingdom.The Europeansworkinginthe factoriesif removedwouldmostly
renderthe factoriesunderstaffedandvacated.100
98 Daniel Davies,‘Brexitsupporters say they're worried about immigration.The real problems are deeper.’ 20th
June 2016,Vox world < http://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11965064/brexit-immigration-economic-decline>
99 ibid
100 ibid

Chapter III
In thischapter,I intendtodeal with a few importantcasesthatdeterminedthe statusof applicants
and to discoverthe reasonswhyaright to residence wasgrantedtosome applicantsandrefusedto
the others.
Placing time limitsto marry in visitvisas
In a 2008 case,101
the AppellateCourtdealtwiththree spousal visa casesinjoint.
The firstcase102
was of an Algeriannational Mr.Baiai whowas 37 yearsoldand a Muslimand who
had enteredthe UnitedKingdomillegally(andneverappliedforvisa) butafterwardsin2005 he
appliedtomarrya Polishnational TrzcinskawhowasaRoman catholicandwholivedasan EEA
workerinthe UnitedKingdom.TheirapplicationfortheirrightunderSection19(3) (b)103
of the 2004
Act was refusedbythe Home Secretary.Afterasuccessful judicial review,the Secretaryof State
grantedthema Certificate of Approval (CoA)andtheygotmarried.
AnotherMuslimcouple wasfromYugoslavia,104
Mr.Bigokuwhowas35 years oldandMs. Agoli
whose age was24 years.The man came to the UnitedKingdomin1998 and filedanapplicationfor
asylum.The woman’sdate of arrival couldnot be ascertained.He receivedfromHome Office an
Exceptional leavetoRemainforone year(whichexpiredin1999) and she receivedthe same forfour
years(from2003 - 2007). Theirapplicationtomarrywhichtheyfiledin2005 was delayedsothey
receivedtheirCoA buttheywere alsoinvitedtowithdraw theirjudicialreview whichtheyrefusedto
do.
The third couple105
were TurkishandMuslims.Mr.Mehmetwas38 andMs. MelekTilki was20 years
old.Beingcousinstheykneweachotherbefore theycame tothe UnitedKingdom.He wasgranted
an indefinite leave toremainin2002. Her asylumclaimwasrefusedbuta limitedleave toremainin
the UnitedKingdomwasgrantedto her.Afterherpregnancywithhernow husband,she appliedfor
permissiontomarry(CoA) whichwasgrantedtoher and an invitationtowithdraw herclaimwas
alsosentbut she chose to keepthe judicial review going.
The Secretaryof State had introducedanew rule accordingto whichpeople whohadlimitedleave
to remaininthe UnitedKingdomforat leastsix monthscouldapplyforthe certificate of approval
101 R. on the application of Baiai and others v.Secretary of State for the Home Department and one other
action [2008] WL 2872478
102 ibid para.2
103 19 (3) The superintendent registrar shall notenter in the marriagenotice book notice of a marriageto
which this section applies unless satisfied,by the provision of specified evidence, that the party subjectto
immigration control—(b) has the written permission of the Secretary of State to marry in the United Kingdom
104 Baiai and others v Secretary of State para.3
105 ibid para.4

(formarriage purpose) onlyif three monthswere leftinthe expiryof theirvisa106
(asperSection19
of AsylumandimmigrationAct2004)
It was allegedbythe partiesthatthislaw interfereswiththeirrightunderArticle 8of the European
Conventionof HumanRights
It was heldbythe court107
that the treatyrightswere available toanyone presentinthe jurisdiction
and that if the purpose of thislawwas to preventshammarriages,itwouldbe validonlytothe
extentthatitservesitspurpose andno further.Placingtime limitstomakinganapplicationtothe
Secretaryof Statescertificate of approval wouldbe unjustandunnecessarybecause ithasnodirect
connectionwithasham marriage.Regardingthe interestsof one orbothpartiesingetting
immigrationthroughmarriage the courtruledthatthere couldbe a varietyof reasonsfor the two
people tomarryeach otherand immigrationcouldbe one of thembutitwouldbe unfairto rule the
marriage as sham solelybecauseanimmigrantstatuswouldbe earnedthroughit.
The role of age in forcedmarriages
In a 2011 case,108
the Supreme Courtdischargedtwoapplications.
The firstwas made by Mr. Quila,whowas a national of Chile while he wasinthe UnitedKingdomon
a studentvisa,he marrieda BritishNational in2008, he was18 and the girl was17 yearsold at that
time.Hisfirstmarriage visaapplicationwasrejectedonthe groundthathiswife hadnotattained
the age of 18 years(asper visarequirement) andthatthese rulescouldnotbe relaxedon
exceptional,compassionatecircumstancesasthe Secretaryof State (thoughhe believedthatthe
marriage isa genuine one) didnothave anydiscretioninregardof agesof the parties.In2009 he
filedafreshapplicationtogranthima spousal visaon the groundthat she had attainedthe age of
18 but the minimumage of marriage wasincreasedto21 yearsby thenand the applicationwas
refusedagain.
The secondwas a case of arrangedmarriage betweenaPakistani womannamedBibi andaBritish
National (Pakistani origin) namedMohammed.Bothwere 18 yearsoldat the time of marriage.The
womanappliedfora marriage visabutdue to the change inlaw at the same time,she wastoldthat
inorder to geta visa she hadto applybefore 27th
Nov,2008 afterwhichthe new ruleswouldapply
underwhichherapplicationwouldfailbecause none of the partnerswas21 yearsold.
The court made a mentionof ProfessorHester’sreport109
inwhichshe hadfoundthatincreasingthe
requiredminimumage formarriage hadnot resultedinadecrease inthe numberof forced
106 Helena Wray edited by Elspeth Guild and Paul Minderhoud,‘The FirstDecade of EU Migration and Asylum
Law’ pg. 364 <
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ES8zAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA364&lpg=PA364&dq=asylum+and+immigration+
act+2004+three+months+for+marriage+rule&source=bl&ots=vs-lY6JE3T&sig=QtZBJI79-
myv4sB_haoOqjFuNCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8i_PGyevOAhXkDsAKHRc8AhMQ6AEISTAH#v=onepage&
q=asylum%20and%20immigration%20act%202004%20three%20months%20for%20marriage%20rule&f=false>
107 Baiai and others v Secretary of State para.32
108 R (on the application of Quilaand another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC
45, R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] WL
4706941
109 Professor MarianneHester, Dr Khatidja Chantler,Dr Geetanjali Gangoli,Jasvinder Devgon, Sandhya Sharma
and Ann Singleton, ‘Forced marriage:the risk factors and the effect of raisingthe minimum age for a sponsor,
and of leaveto enter the UK as a spouseor fiancé(e)’ August 2007 < http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-
library/sites/sps/migrated/documents/rk6612finalreport.pdf>

marriages.Assuch ruleswouldlimitthe capacitytomarry of onlya few groupsinthe society,she
regardeditas raciallydiscriminatoryaswell.110
Itwasalsofoundthatthe possibilityof forced
marriagescouldnotbe eliminatedbyanincrease inage as victimizationispossible evenatalater
age andthere are manyotherpossible waysof gettingawaywiththese rules.
The supportersof increasedage reliedonthe reportpublishedbyHome AffairsSelectCommittee of
the House of Commons111
inwhichitwas foundthatan increasedage wouldmeanmore time for
the partiesto mature and complete theireducation.Itwouldalsoreduce the chancesof parents
forcingtheirchildrentomarrybefore the due age.
By a majorityof 4-1 the Supreme Court112
upheldthe righttoprivate andfamilylivesof the couples
underArticle 8 andrejectedthe appeal of the Secretaryof State because accordingto Lord Wilson,it
had failedtoshowhowthe marriageswere forced.Thoughthe validityof the purpose of the para
277 of the ImmigrationRules113
wasupheldbutitsapplicabilityinthe casesof the respondent
partieswasdeniedbythe court.
Lord Brown114
had dissentedfromthe judgmentandstatedthatas the numberof forcedmarriages
couldnot be ascertainedhence the effectof para.277 of the ImmigrationRules couldnotbe
measuredaccuratelyand alsothat itis bettertoleave forthe governmentthe jobof balancingoff
the sufferingsof victimsof forcedmarriage andthose whosufferbecauseof the applicationof strict
rulesintheirgenuine cases. LordWilson115
didnotagree withhisinvitation toleave awide
discretionforthe Secretaryof the State to decide the cases.
In a paperauthoredbyChantler,Gangoli andHester116
itwas discoveredthroughprimaryresearch
that poverty,sexuality,genderinequalities,violence,childmarriages,immigrationandasylumwere
all contributingtoand resultinginforcedmarriagesinBritain.Hence,treatingage asthe sole reason
of forcingpeople tomarryandbelievingthatbyincreasingthe minimumrequiredage we have
tackledthe whole multidimensional issue of forcedmarriagesisafalse illusion.Itwasbelievedby
the people whowere interviewedthatthe age-raise isonlybasedonimmigrationcontrol strategies
and noton crime prevention.Itwasalsodiscoveredthatthe issue isfoundnotonlyinthe South
Asiancommunitiesbutalsoina limitednumberof whites,thusfocusingsolelyonthe immigrants
fromSouth Asiaactuallyresultsinaneglectof othergroupsfacingthe same issue.
Importance of Englishlanguage in Britain
110 ibid pg. 4
111 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, ‘Domestic Violence, Forced Marriageand “Honour”-Based
Violence’ Sixth Report of Session 2007–08 < http://karmanirvana.org.uk/cms/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/select-com-report-fm.pdf>
112 Quila v.Secretary of the State para.58
113 Immigration Rules para.277. Spouses and civil partners. ‘Nothingin these Rules shall beconstrued as
permitting a person to be granted entry clearance,leaveto enter, leave to remain or variation of leaveas a
spouseor civil partner of another if either the applicantor the sponsor will beaged under 18 on the date of
arrival in theUnited Kingdom or (as the casemay be) on the date on which the leaveto remain or variation of
leave would be granted. In these rules the term “sponsor” includes “partner”as defined in GEN 1.2 of
Appendix FM.’
116 Khatidja Chantler,Geetanjali Gangoli,and MarianneHester, ‘Forced marriages in the United Kingdom:
Religious,cultural,economic or State violence?’ 2009 Critical Social policy pg.587

There has beenaset of requirementstobe metby the entrantsinorderto be admittedinthe
UnitedKingdomforspousal visaorsettlementpurposes.Rulesotherthanthe language requirement
are that,117
1. the partiesshouldhave metinperson,
2. theyshouldhave an intentionof livingtogetherpermanently,
3. theyshouldbe self sufficientintheiraccommodationandnotintendingtorelyonpublicfundsfor
survival,
4. theyshouldbe able to maintainthemselvesandtheirdependentswithoutrelyingonthe
Governmentfunds,
5. for the purpose of seekinganindefiniteentry,the spouseshadtoshow proof of Englishlanguage
skills
Para. 281 of the ImmigrationRules,118
enforcedinNovember2011 has requiredthose seeking
spousal visatoprove an abilitytocommunicate inEnglish.The level of Englishrequiredbythisrule is
117 Immigration Rules para.281 as amended on 1 Oct, 2010
118 Spouses or civil partners of persons presentand settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the
same occasion for settlement, Requirements for leave to enter the United Kingdom with a view to settlement
as the spouseor civil partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or being admitted on the
same occasion for settlement:
281. The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom with a view to
settlement as the spouseor civil partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or who is on
the same occasion beingadmitted for settlement are that:
(i) (a)(i) the applicantismarried to or the civil partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or
who is on the same occasion beingadmitted for settlement; and
(ii) the applicantprovides an original English languagetest certificatein speakingand listeningfroman English
languagetest provider approved by the Secretary of State for these purposes,which clearly shows the
applicant’s nameand the qualification obtained (which mustmeet or exceed level A1 of the Common
European Framework of Reference) unless:
(a) the applicantis aged 65 or over at the time he makes his application;or
(b) the applicanthas a physical or mental condition thatwould prevent himfrom meeting the requirement; or;
(c) there are exceptional compassionatecircumstances thatwould prevent the applicantfrommeeting the
requirement; or
(iii) theapplicantis a national of oneof the followingcountries:Antigua and Barbuda;Australia;the Bahamas;
Barbados;Belize; Canada;Dominica;Grenada; Guyana; Jamaica;New Zealand;St Kitts and Nevis; St Lucia;St
Vincent and the Grenadines; Trinidad and Tobago; United States of America; or
(iv) the applicanthas obtained an academic qualification(nota professional or vocational qualification),which
is deemed by UK NARIC to meet the recognised standard of a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree or PhD in the UK,
from an educational establishmentin one of the followingcountries:Antigua and Barbuda; Australia;The
Bahamas;Barbados;Belize; Dominica;Grenada; Guyana; Ireland;Jamaica;New Zealand; St Kitts and Nevis; St
Lucia;St Vincent and The Grenadines; Trinidad and Tobago;the UK; the USA; and provides the specified
documents; or
(v) the applicanthas obtained an academic qualification (nota professional or vocational qualification) which is
deemed by UK NARIC to meet the recognised standard of a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree or PhD in the UK,
and
(1) provides the specified evidence to show he has the qualification,and
(2) UK NARIC has confirmed that the qualification was taughtor researched in English,or
(vi) has obtained an academic qualification (nota professional or vocational qualification) which is deemed by
UK NARIC to meet the recognised standard of a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree or PhD in the UK, and provides
the specified evidence to show:
(1) he has the qualification,and

not a veryhigh/advance level butof abasic level toprove thatthe new entrantwill be able to
survive inthe societyontheirownandwithoutassistance.Itwouldalsohelpthe new comers
integrate andbecome productive membersof the society.The purpose of the rule,accordingto
Carver,119
was to banthe entryof the “benefitsScrounger”whoatthe time of comingto the country
have thisinmindthat he will nothave to workbecause theycouldlive comfortablyonthe
allowancesprovidedbythe government.
In 2011, this rule waschallenged bythree claimants120
onthe groundsof causinginterference tothe
Article 8 and 12 rightsof the parties,itwastermedas“irrational”,“disproportionate”,and
“unlawful”anditwasallegedthatthisrule wasposinga hurdle inthe spousesrighttomarry and live
togetherinthe UnitedKingdom.Itwasfurthercontendedthatthe rule isa threatto the race and
nationalities,ethnicorigins,language,genderand disabilitybecause peoplecome fromplaceswhere
there are no Englishlanguage testingcentres,ortheyhave limitedornoeducationortheyare
lackinginthe intellectual abilitiestolearnnew languagesorthattheyare too oldto learna new
language.
The facts of the three casesfor judicial review were asfollows,
The firstclaimantwas Mrs. Chapti121
whomarriedherhusbandinGujrat, Indiain1973. Theyhave
sevenchildrentogether.She wasaBritishOverseascitizenatthattime.She settledinthe United
Kingdomin2006 andwas naturalizedin2007. Her husbandappliedforentryclearance in2007 and
it wasrefusedtohim.He appealedbutforno avail.The nexttime he filedafreshapplicationfor
himself andhisson,itwasrefusedonthe basisof a failure toshow Englishlanguage skillsandalso
due to hiswife’sfinancial inabilitytosupporthim.Inappeal the familycontendedthattheywere an
old,illiterate couple (manwas56 andthe womanwas53 yearsold) that Gujrati was the only
language theyspoke andthatthe mancouldnot learna new language at thisage and evenif he
could,there were noproperEnglishlanguage centersinGujratandalsothat theirclose circle of
friends/relativesalsocouldspeakGujrati only.The firsttiertribunal hadrefusedtoallow the
applicationonthe groundthat the applicantcouldnotreador write Englishandalsobecause he had
doubtedthe legal validityof the marriage certificate.
The secondclaimantwasMrs. RobinaShah122
(24 yearsold) whowantedtosponsorher husbandAli
(19 yearsold) wholivedinYemen.Theydidnotmake anapplicationforMr. Ali forEntry Clearance
because theyfearedthatitwouldbe rejectedonthe groundsthatMr. Ali couldnotspeakEnglish.It
was alsothe case thatMr. Ali beingilliteratecouldnotfill inthe formsonlineandthere were no
Englishlanguage centersinYemenwherehe couldhave soughthelp.
The third claimantwasMrs. Bibi123
whowas a Britishcitizen(aged20) and had marrieda Pakistani
(aged25). Mr. Jehangirwasdealingmore orlesswiththe same issue asthe rest.He was educatedto
matriculationlevel (10grades) inhislocal language Urdu.He hadno understandingof Englishand
couldnot use computers.Livinginaremote areaof Pakistanhe couldnotgo to any bigcity ona
dailybasistoattendclassesdue to longdistancesandalsodue to financial hurdles.
(2) that the qualification was taughtor researched in English.
120 The Queen on the application of,Mrs.Rashida Vali Chapti and Mr.Vali Ahmad Chapti, Mrs.Saffand Abdulla
Mohammad Ali,Mrs.Saiqa Bibi v Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Liberty, Joint Council for the
welfare of immigrants CaseNo. [2011] EWHC 3370 (Admin)
121 ibid para.24
122 ibid para.28
123 ibid para.31

All three applicantssoughtthe language requirementtobe relaxedintheircircumstances.124
The
para 281 of ImmigrationRuleswaschallengedbythem.The requirementsinthisparacouldbe
fulfilledbyeitherof the three waysenlistedtherein.Itcouldeitherbe shownthatthe personhas
competencyinspeakingEnglishbypassinganapprovedtestA1CERF minimumlevel,orbyshowing
that the personisa national of a countrywhere the majorityof people speakEnglish,orbyhaving
proof of an academicqualificationthatisequivalenttothe Bachelors,Mastersor the Ph.D.studiesin
the UnitedKingdom.Exemptionsfromthe rule couldbe claimedonone of the three grounds.
1. that the applicanthasreached65 yearsof age,
2. that the applicanthasa mental or physical conditionthatpreventshimfromfulfillingthe required
condition,
3. that the applicantisfacinga situationwhichissufficientto attract the “exceptional
compassionate circumstances”onbehalf of the Home Secretarytogrant the party leave toenter
withouttheirhavingtoshowminimumEnglishlevel skills.(The lackof facilitiesof anapproved
Englishlanguage testingcenterinthe place where the applicantlivesisareasontoattract the
“exceptionalcompassionate circumstancesrule).A listof countriesispublishedbythe United
KingdomBorderAgencyontheirwebsite,wherenotasingle Englishlanguage testcenterapproved
by themislocated.
The UnitedKingdomBorderAgencyhadenforcedthe pre-entryEnglishTestrequirementtobe
fulfilledinviewof the resultsof the consultationpapersthatwere publishedafterbeingresearched
by variouspeople.DustmannandFabbri in2003125
hadpublishedanarticle inwhichtheyhadfound
that a person’semploymentprospectscouldincreaseupto22% if he/she had a commandon
Englishlanguage.Inanotherpaperpublishedbythe UnitedKingdomBorderAgency,126
itwas
mentionedasthe aimof the Governmenttoletthe new entrantsintothe UnitedKingdomtomake
meaningful contributionstothe countryandby makingcompulsorythe pre-entryEnglishtestitwas
intendedandensuredbythe Governmentthatthe new comersunderstandthatlearningEnglishis
the basic requirementif theywanttolive inthe UnitedKingdomwiththeirlovedonesona
permanentbasis.The mainreasonwhythe Governmentstressedsomuchonthe understandingof
Englishwasto reduce the cost of hiringprofessional translatorsinforeignlanguagesandalsoto
make the newcomersconfidentinseekingworkandhence helpingthemtodomore than just
lookingaftertheirhome andfamily.One reasonforchangingthe testfrompost-entry(inwhichthe
spouse wasallowedatime of twoyearsto live inthe UnitedKingdombefore theywouldhave to
pass the Englishtest) topre entry,wasthat a numberof spouseswhohadlivedfortwoyearshad
failedthe test.127
The language testisnotnew to the UnitedKingdom.Infact,Netherlands, Germany
and a fewothercountrieshave alreadytakensimilarmeasuresandintroducedtheirlanguage
tests.128
Judgments
124 ibid para.2
125 Christian Dustmann,Francesca Fabbri and Ian Preston,‘THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE BRITISH
LABOUR MARKET’, The Economic Journal,115 (November), F324–F341. Ó Royal Economic Society 2005.
Published by Blackwell Publishing< http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/ecoj_1038.pdf>
126 ‘MarriageVisas:Pre-Entry English Requirements for Spouses’ Law centre NI <
http://www.lawcentreni.org/consultation-responses-by-category/immigration-responses/248.html>
127 Impact assessmentpublished by Home Officeon 27th July, 2009
128 ‘Equality ImpactAssessment’ published by Home Officein July 2009

Justice Beatson129
inthe HighCourt hadupheldthe Governmentsregulationsandsaidthatthe new
rule isnot a disproportionateinterference withthe Article 8and12 of the rightsof the parties.The
allegationof nationalitybaseddiscriminationwerealsorejected130
onthe factsthat the claimants
had reliedonthe issuesof poverty,lackof educationalopportunitiesandbelongingtoa rural area
and remotenessfromfacilitieswhichare notsufficienttoclaimdiscriminationbasedonnationality;
evenotherwisethe separate queuesatthe airportfornon-EEA travelersare forthe purpose of
facilitationthose withlanguage differencesandnottohighlightpeople onthe basisof theirraces.
Lord Justice Maurice K.131
whowrote the majorityjudgmentforthe same appellantsin the England
and WalesCourtof Appeals, hadreachedtothe same conclusionasthe HighCourt and he had
writteninhisjudgment(whichwasagreedbythe majority) thatitis justrational todraw a “bright
line”betweenthe nationalsof Englishspeakingcountriesandthose whospeakotherlanguagesin
othercountriesandthat the appellant’sdifficultytomeetthe requirementsisnotbasedontheir
ethnicitybuttheirskillsinEnglish.
Sir DavidKeene132
haddissentedfromthe judgmentonthe groundsthatthe governmenthadfailed
to showhowthe previouspostentrytesthadnot achievedthe desiredresults?Tohim, the pre-
entrytestswere notsufficienttoenable the individual tocommunicate inEnglishinthe United
Kingdomandhe had alsomentionedDr.Wray’sanalysis(para45-46) where Dr. Wray had saidthat it
iseasierfora persontomasterEnglishfullyonce he isinthe UnitedKingdom.
Article 12 of the European ConventionofHuman Rights and the language test
The supportersof no-EnglishTestrely onthe Article 12 rightunderECHR and alsothe rule of Equity
whichsays,‘justice delayedisjustice denied’andasthe rule placesanunnecessarydelayinletting
the partiesenjoytheirmarriedlives.Article 12of the ECHR upholdsthe rightsof all to marry and
founda family,andthatthe right to live togetherwithones’ partnerisapart and parcel of marriage
as underthe Article 23 of the International CovenantonCivil andPolitical Rights(ICPR),‘Inprinciple,
it isimpliedthatthe righttoprocreate and live togetherare apart of the rightto marry.
One issue whichthe courtshad to deal withwasthe absence of the previousfamilylife (asisseenin
the cases of most Asiancoupleswhodonotreside togetherpriortogettingmarried).The question
wouldarise thatthe Governmenthadnotinterruptedthe familylivesof partiesasthere wasno
familylife.Butin GAMv. Secretaryof State133
Lord Ordinary hadclarifiedthisconfusionbystating
that the rightis not merelythatof goingthrougha ceremonyof marriage butto make a realityof it
by livingtogether.ItwasalsoheldinAfghanistanv.Home department134
byLordJustice Hooperwho
had said,‘itisinconceivablethatthe Secretaryof the State party to the Conventioncouldpreventa
newly andgenuinelywedhusbandandwife fromcohabitingandthensuccessfullyclaimthat
because of the absence of cohabitationthere isnofamilylifeandthereforeArticle8is notengaged.’
In Quila’scase,one of the FamiliesMrs.Bibi hadneverlivedexceptforone weekinPakistanbutthe
129 Mrs. Rashida Vali Chapti and others v Secretary of State para.148
130 pg. 30
131 The Queen on the application of Mrs Saiqa bibi,Mrs.Saffana Abdulla Mohammad Ali v The Secretary of the
State for the Home department v Liberty JCWI [2013] EWCA Civ 322
132 [2013] EWCA Civ 322 para.53
133 [2015] CSIH 28 para.67
134 A (Afghanistan) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ.825

Supreme courthad upheldtheirrighttoa familylife underArticle 8.(Generally,Article 12isseenin
conjunctionwithArticle underthe ECHR).
The right to live togetherin the UnitedKingdom
Is the marriedcouple free tolive inthe countryof theirliking?The reasonfora refusal wouldbe
simplybecause theyneedtoshowtheirrightsof residencybutwhatif one of themisa citizenof the
countryof theirchoice?All countrieshave theirownimmigrationpolicies butsome proof of a grant
of permissionfromthe bordercontrol authoritieswouldgenerallybe neededeverywhere.
In the case of GAM v secretaryof the State135
,a 28 yearsoldman hadcome fromPakistanona 1-
yearwork visato the UnitedKingdomin2004. He overstayedsince thenandneverappliedforan
extension.The same year(2004) he met a lady(Ms. Govanhill) inthe busandtheykeptincontact
since then.Theywere engagedin2009 andrenteda flatin the same year.The manappliedfor
Secretaryof State’spermissiontomarrywhichwasgrantedafter9 monthsin2011. The validityof
the relationshipwasneverquestionedbythe Secretaryof the State but,in2013 the Secretaryof
State refusedtogrant the man any furtherleave tostayinthe UnitedKingdom.The womanisa
Britishcitizenandasher spouse,relyingonherrightsto stayin the country,the man filedapetition
withemphasisonhisrightto marry andfounda family(Article 12of ECHR).It was rejectedandthen
he filedfora judicial reviewof the decision.
It islaiddownin the ImmigrationRules(HC395) publishedbythe Secretaryof the State thatin case
the Petitionersoughtleave toenterorremaininthe UnitedKingdom, itisrequiredof him/herthat
he/she have not remainedinthe countryinbreachof anyImmigrationLaw exceptfor28 daysor
less.136
Havingalreadyoverstayedforaverylongperiod,the petitionerwassupposedtofulfilthe
Immigrationcriteria137
of paraEX1B,
“(b) the applicanthasa genuine andsubsistingrelationshipwithapartnerwhois inthe United
Kingdomandisa Britishcitizen,settledinthe UnitedKingdomorinthe UnitedKingdomwith
refugee leaveorhumanitarianprotection,andthere are insurmountableobstaclestofamilylife with
that partnercontinuingoutside the UnitedKingdom.”
The Secretaryof the State takingnotice of the last term“insurmountableobstacles,”hadgiven
reasonsinthe letterissuedinNovember,138
rejectinghisapplication,of whytheybelieve thatthe
couple couldcontinue theirmarriedlife inPakistanwithoutanysuchobstacles.The firstreasonwas
that Englishisa majorlanguage inPakistanandit shouldnotbe difficultforthe couple tofindjobs
overthere.Secondly,the petitionerhadgoodtieswithhisfamilywhoevenattendedhisweddingso
theycouldprovide the couple,if evenforashort term, a livingarrangement.Thirdly,withthe
moderncommunicationchannels,the wife shouldnothave anyproblemskeepingintouchwithher
familyandfriendsthroughvisitingtothe UnitedKingdomorviaelectronicmeans.Also,the manand
womanhavingstartedtheirmarriedlife shortlybeforethe Secretaryof State’sdecisioncouldnot
claima protectionunderit.
135 [2015] CSIH 28 Para.2
136 Immigration Rules (HC395) para.284 sub para iv.On 9th July 2012 an additional Appendix FM was added to
the rules the section R-TLP were relevant to the petitioner.
137 Immigration Rules (HC395) EX1(b)
138 [2015] CSIH 28 Para.6

The court,139
havingregardto the factthat a refusal togrant leave toremainmightcause a complete
separationbetweenthe couple,hadupheldthe man’srighttolive nthe UnitedKingdom.The Court
saidthat regardlessof the durationof marriage,the relationshiphadbeenpersistentformanyyears
and as a result,itshouldbe seeninitsentirety.
Conclusion
I have to beginthe conclusionwithanemphasisonthe utmostneedandimportance of English
Language inthe UnitedKingdom.Asthiswasthe sole objectdue towhichentrywasrefusedevento
the otherwise genuine applicants.The “rightsof others”wouldcome secondinthe listasa
possibilityof aviolationof the rightsof the non-citizensisinvolvedinthe issue of foreignspouses
exploitedbythose settledinthe UnitedKingdominthe name of marriage,the age differenceof
spousesmayplaya role indeterminingif the marriage isgenuine but settingageneral age-gate for
all spousestoenterthe countrycouldbe more harmful thanhelpingthe interestsof couples.The
rightsof itsowncitizenstolive withtheirforeignspouse have oftenbeenunderestimatedinthe
UnitedKingdom,the situationcouldhave beenworse if the CommunityLawsof the EuropeanUnion
had notcame handy for the aidof BritishCitizens.The overall situationissomewhatunpredictable
(i.e.newamendmentsinImmigrationLawseveryyearandnoparticularsetupfordetermininghow
the Secretaryof State wouldexercise theirdiscretion) andthe reasonforits unpredictabilitycould
be assignedtothe fact that there isa Secretaryof the State who isthe single source of law-making
as well itsimplementationinthe individualcases.Inthismonopolisticenvironment,the presence of
Judicial remedies isadefinite helpforthe applicants.
139 [2015] CSIH 28 Para.23

Bibliography
Legislation:
EuropeanConventiononHumanRights (ECHR) 3rd
September,1953
ImmigrationAct2014
Nationality, ImmigrationandAsylumAct2002
Case Law:
AB (Jamaica) vState for the Home Department[2007] EWCA Civ1302
Mirza v The Secretary of Statefor theHome Department [2015] CSIH- 28
R (onthe applicationof Alvi)(Respondent)v Secretaryof State forthe Home Department(Appellant)
[2012] UKSC 33 On appealfrom:[2011] EWCA Civ 681
N v D (CustomaryMarriage) [2015] EWFC 28
Abdulaziz,CablesandBalkandali vUK(1985) 7 EHRR 471
JohnstonvIreland(1986) 9 EHRR 203
KeeganvIreland(1994) 18 EHRR 342
Kroonv Netherlands(1994) 19 EHRR 263
Marckx v Belgium(1979) 2 EHRR 330
Boyle vUK (1994) 19 E.H.R.R.179
R (onthe applicationof KlodjianLekstake) vImmigrationAppeal Tribunal [2005] EWHC 745

LD (Zimbabwe) vSecretaryof State forthe Home Department[2010] UKUT 278
SS (India) vSecretaryof State for the Home Department[2010] EWCA Civ388
Patel,Modha& OdedravEntry Clearance Officer[2010] EWCA Civ17
JB (India) &Ors v Entry Clearance Officer[2009] EWCA Civ234
Entry Clearance Officer,Mumbai vNH(India) [2007] EWCA Civ1330
Textbooks:
Clayton,Gina‘Textbookonimmigrationandasylumlaw’ OxfordUniversityPress, 31Jul 2014
Smith,Rhona‘TextbookonInternational HumanRights’4th
EditionOxfordUniversityPress,New
York, 2010
Smith,Rhona‘TextsandmaterialsonInternational HumanRights’2nd
EditionOxfordUniversity
Press,NewYork,2007
Beouk-BettsvSecretaryof State forthe Home Department[2008] UKHL 39
Journals:
ImmigrationDirectorate InstructionFamilyMigration:Appendix FMSection1.0b
FamilyLife (asa Partneror Parent) andPrivate Life:10-YearRoutes,August2015
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/452912/Family_L
ife__as_a_Partner_or_Parent__and_Private_Life_-_10-year_routes_guidance_August_2015.pdf>
HumphreysStephen,‘Legalizing Lawlessness:On Giorgio Agamben’s State of Exception’2006 The
EuropeanJournal of International LawVol.17 no.3
HeatherStewart,RowenaMasonand RajeevSial,‘DavidCameroonresignsafterUKvotesto leave
EuropeanUnion’The GuardianFri 24th
June,2016

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/david-cameroon-resigns-after-uk-votes-to-leave-
european-union accessed3rdJuly,2016
Zack Beauchamp,‘Brexithasthrownthe UK’stwo majorpartiesintocivil war’Vox World30th
June,
2016 www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064972/brexit-labour-tories-corbyn-johnson accessed3rd
July,
2016
DylanMatthews, ‘Bracksies:howBrexitcouldwindupnotactuallyhappening’,Vox policyandpolitics
25th
June,2016 www.vox.com/2016/6/25/12031254/no-brexit-article-50accessed3rdJuly,2016
ChristianDustmann,FrancescaFabbri andIan Preston, ‘THEIMPACT OFIMMIGRATION ON THE
BRITISH LABOUR MARKET’,The EconomicJournal,115 (November),F324–F341. Ó Royal Economic
Society2005. PublishedbyBlackwellPublishing
<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpb21/Cpapers/ecoj_1038.pdf>
‘Marriage Visas:Pre-EntryEnglishRequirementsforSpouses’Law centre NI<
http://www.lawcentreni.org/consultation-responses-by-category/immigration-responses/248.html>
Impact assessmentpublishedbyHome Office on27th
July,2009
‘EqualityImpactAssessment’publishedbyHome Office inJuly2009

Appendix
1 The July2012 ImmigrationRulesAppendixFM SectionEC-P:Entry clearance as a
partner EC-P.1.1.The requirementstobe metfor entryclearance asa partnerare that- (a)
the applicantmustbe outside the UK;
2 (b) the applicantmusthave made a validapplicationforentryclearance asa partner;
3 (c) the applicantmustnotfall forrefusal underanyof the groundsinSectionS-EC:
Suitability–entryclearance;and
4 (d) the applicantmustmeetall of the requirementsof SectionE-ECP:
5 Eligibilityforentryclearance asa partner.  SectionS-EC:Suitability-entryclearance S-
EC.1.1. The applicantwill be refusedentryclearance ongroundsof suitabilityif anyof
paragraphsS-EC.1.2. to 1.8. apply. S-EC.1.2.The Secretaryof State haspersonallydirected
that the exclusionof the applicantfromthe UKisconducive tothe publicgood. S-EC.1.3.
The applicantisat the date of applicationthe subjectof a deportationorder. S-EC.1.4.The
exclusionof the applicantfromthe UKisconducive tothe publicgoodbecause they
have: (a) beenconvictedof anoffence forwhichtheyhave beensentencedtoaperiodof
imprisonmentof atleast4 years;or
6
7 (b) beenconvictedof anoffence forwhichtheyhave beensentencedtoa periodof
imprisonmentof atleast12 monthsbut lessthan4 years,unlessa periodof 10 yearshas
passedsince the endof the sentence;or (c) beenconvictedof anoffence forwhichthey
have beensentencedtoa periodof imprisonmentof lessthan12 months,unlessaperiodof
5 yearshas passedsince the endof the sentence. Where thisparagraphapplies,unless
refusal wouldbe contrarytothe HumanRightsConventionorthe ConventionandProtocol
Relatingtothe Statusof Refugees,itwillonlybe inexceptional circumstancesthatthe public
interestinmaintainingrefusalwillbe outweighedbycompellingfactors. S-EC.1.5.The
exclusionof the applicantfromthe UKisconducive tothe publicgoodbecause,for example,
the applicant'sconduct(includingconvictionswhichdonotfall withinparagraphS-EC.1.4.),
character, associations,orotherreasons,make itundesirable tograntthementry
clearance. S-EC.1.6.The applicanthasfailedwithoutreasonable excusetocomplywitha
requirementto-
8 (a) attendan interview;
9 (b) provide information;
10 (c) provide physical data;or
11 (d) undergoa medical examinationorprovide amedical report. S-EC.1.7.Itisundesirable to
grant entryclearance to the applicantfor medical reasons. S-EC.1.8.The applicantleftor
was removedfromthe UKas a conditionof acautionissuedinaccordance withsection134
of the Legal Aid,SentencingandPunishmentof OffendersAct2012 lessthan5 years priorto
the date onwhichthe applicationisdecided. S-EC.2.1.The applicantwill normallybe
refusedongroundsof suitabilityif anyof paragraphsS-EC.2.2. to 2.5. apply. S-EC.2.2.

Whetheror notto the applicant'sknowledge- (a) falseinformation,representationsor
documentshave beensubmittedinrelationtothe application(includingfalse information
submittedtoanypersonto obtaina documentusedinsupportof the application);or
12 (b) there hasbeena failure todisclose materialfactsinrelationtothe application.  S-EC.2.3.
One or more relevantNHSbodyhas notifiedthe Secretaryof State thatthe applicanthas
failedtopaycharges inaccordance withthe relevantNHSregulationsonchargestooverseas
visitorsandthe outstandingchargeshave atotal value of at least£1000. S-EC.2.4. A
maintenance andaccommodationundertakinghasbeenrequestedorrequiredunder
paragraph 35 of these Rulesorotherwise andhasnotbeenprovided. S-EC.2.5.The
exclusionof the applicantfromthe UKisconducive tothe publicgoodbecause: (a) within
the 12 monthsprecedingthe date of the application,the personhasbeenconvictedof or
admittedanoffence forwhichtheyreceivedanon-custodialsentence orotheroutof court
disposal thatisrecordedontheircriminal record;or (b) inthe view of the Secretaryof
State: (i) the person'soffendinghascausedseriousharm;or (ii) the personisapersistent
offenderwhoshowsaparticulardisregardforthe law. SectionE-ECP:Eligibilityforentry
clearance as a partner  E-ECP.1.1.To meetthe eligibilityrequirementsforentryclearance
as a partner all of the requirementsinparagraphsE-ECP.2.1.to4.2. mustbe
met. Relationshiprequirements E-ECP.2.1.The applicant'spartnermustbe- (a) aBritish
Citizeninthe UK,subjectto paragraphGEN.1.3.(c); or
13 (b) presentandsettledinthe UK,subjecttoparagraph GEN.1.3.(b);or
14 (c) in the UK withrefugee leave orwithhumanitarianprotection.  E-ECP.2.2.The applicant
mustbe aged18 or overat the date of application. E-ECP.2.3.The partnermustbe aged18
or overat the date of application. E-ECP.2.4.The applicantandtheirpartnermustnotbe
withinthe prohibiteddegree of relationship. E-ECP.2.5.The applicantandtheirpartner
musthave met inperson. E-ECP.2.6.The relationshipbetweenthe applicantandtheir
partnermust be genuine andsubsisting. E-ECP.2.7.If the applicantandpartnerare married
or in a civil partnershipitmustbe a validmarriage orcivil partnership,asspecified. E-
ECP.2.8. If the applicantisa fiancé(e)orproposedcivil partnertheymustbe seekingentryto
the UK to enable theirmarriage orcivil partnershiptotake place. E-ECP.2.9.Anyprevious
relationshipof the applicantortheirpartnermusthave brokendownpermanently,unlessit
isa relationshipwhich fallswithinparagraph278(i) of these Rules. E-ECP.2.10.The applicant
and partnermustintendtolive togetherpermanentlyinthe UK. Financial requirements E-
ECP.3.1. The applicantmustprovide specifiedevidence,fromthe sourceslistedinparagraph
E-ECP.3.2.,of- (a) aspecifiedgrossannual income of atleast-  (i) £18,600;
15 (ii) anadditional £3,800 for the firstchild;and
16 (iii) anadditional £2,400 foreach additional child;aloneorincombinationwith  (b)
specifiedsavingsof-  (i) £16,000; and
17 (ii) additional savingsof anamountequivalentto2.5 timesthe amountwhichisthe
difference betweenthe grossannual income fromthe sourceslistedinparagraphE-
ECP.3.2.(a)-(d) andthe total amountrequiredunderparagraphE-ECP.3.1.(a);or (c) the
requirementsinparagraphE-ECP.3.3.beingmet.  Inthisparagraph"child"meansa
dependentchildof the applicantwhois- (a) underthe age of 18 years,or who wasunder
the age of 18 yearswhentheywere firstgrantedentryunderthisroute;  (b) applyingfor

entryclearance as a dependantof the applicant,orhaslimitedleavetoenterorremainin
the UK;  (c) nota BritishCitizenorsettledinthe UK;and  (d) notan EEA national witha
rightto be admittedunderthe Immigration(EEA) Regulations2006.  E-ECP.3.2.When
determiningwhetherthe financial requirementinparagraphEECP. 3.1.is metonlythe
followingsourceswillbe takenintoaccount- (a) income of the partnerfromspecified
employmentorself-employment,which,inrespectof apartner returningtothe UK withthe
applicant,caninclude specifiedemploymentorself-employmentoverseasandinthe UK;
 (b) specifiedpensionincome of the applicantandpartner;  (c) anyspecifiedmaternity
allowance orbereavementbenefitreceivedbythe partnerinthe UK;  (d) otherspecified
income of the applicantandpartner;and  (e) specifiedsavingsof the applicantandpartner.
 E-ECP.3.3.The requirementstobe metunderthisparagraphare- (a) the applicant's
partnermust be receivingone ormore of the following-  (i) disabilitylivingallowance;
18 (ii) severe disablementallowance;
19 (iii) industrial injurydisablementbenefit;
20 (iv) attendance allowance;
21 (v) carer's allowance;or
22 (vi) personal independence payment;and  (b) the applicantmustprovide evidence that
theirpartnerisable to maintainandaccommodate themselves,the applicantandany
dependantsadequatelyinthe UKwithoutrecourse topublicfunds.  E-ECP.3.4.The
applicantmustprovide evidencethatthere will be adequateaccommodation, without
recourse to publicfunds,forthe family,includingotherfamilymemberswhoare not
includedinthe applicationbutwholive inthe same household,whichthe familyownor
occupy exclusively:accommodationwill notbe regardedasadequate if- (a)itis,orwill be,
overcrowded;or (b) itcontravenespublichealthregulations.  Englishlanguage
requirement E-ECP.4.1.The applicantmustprovide specifiedevidence thatthey- (a) are a
national of a majorityEnglishspeakingcountrylistedinparagraphGEN.1.6.;  (b) have
passedan Englishlanguage testinspeakingandlisteningata minimumof level A1of the
CommonEuropeanFrameworkof ReferenceforLanguageswithaproviderapprovedbythe
UK Border Agency;  (c) have anacademicqualification recognisedbyUKNARICtobe
equivalenttothe standardof a Bachelor'sor Master's degree orPhDin the UK, whichwas
taught inEnglish;or (d) are exemptfromthe Englishlanguage requirementunder
paragraph EECP.4.2.  E-ECP.4.2.The applicantisexemptfromthe Englishlanguage
requirementif atthe date of application- (a) the applicantisaged65 or over;  (b) the
applicanthasa disability(physical ormental condition)whichpreventsthe applicantfrom
meetingthe requirement;or (c) there are exceptional circumstanceswhichpreventthe
applicantfrombeingable tomeetthe requirementpriortoentrytothe UK.  SectionD-ECP:
Decisionon applicationfor entry clearance as a partner D-ECP.1.1.If the applicantmeets
the requirementsforentryclearance asapartnerthe applicantwill be grantedentry
clearance foran initial periodnotexceeding33months,and subjecttoa conditionof no
recourse to publicfunds;or,where the applicantisafiancé(e) orproposedcivil partner,the
applicantwill be grantedentryclearance foraperiodnotexceeding6months,and subject
to a conditionof norecourse to publicfundsanda prohibitiononemployment. D-ECP.1.2.
Where the applicantdoesnotmeetthe requirementsforentryclearance asa partnerthe

Final-2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Final-2

Similar to Final-2 (20)

Final-2