ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
My current leave was expired in mar and I made out of time eea2 application in jul. Got COA after 1 week and refusal in second week stating that our marriage was marriage of convenience. I and my wife are going to court to prove otherwise.86ti wrote:It may be also useful to detail what has led to the appeal.
UKBA like to lose appeals. http://freemovement.wordpress.com/2011/ ... moralised/treefriend wrote:My current leave was expired in mar and I made out of time eea2 application in jul. Got COA after 1 week and refusal in second week stating that our marriage was marriage of convenience. I and my wife are going to court to prove otherwise.86ti wrote:It may be also useful to detail what has led to the appeal.
Can all picture taking before and after the marriage be used in the court as an evidence? can all utility bills, pets owned licence? now comunication is only on emails and if partners are mostly together the only way of contacting are mobile text massaging by send sending love text, but am confused how you can print out test messages, can that also be used as evidence in the court?nonspecifics wrote:Legally, If it's at the tribunal or court then all the married couple have to prove is that they are a legally married couple ( the marriage certificate) and so qualify under EU law. Thus, it is wrong to refuse the application.
They have proved their assertion they are married. Other evidence of time and devotion spent together before marriage, communication ( love letters and photos together etc would only help to reinforce that evidence further, that it was a genuine love relationship, as would proof of cohabitation if it existed).
To legally justify the refusal, It's really up to the HO to prove their case. They must prove they have enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the couple are faking the relationship. If HO fail to prove their assertion that the marriage is fake, then the HO should lose the case. ( if the Tribunal or court is fair and just).
Now, UKBA are working closer with Ministers of Religion and Registrars who can spot the bogus relationships. Do HO offer this as evidence?
Perhaps, it is better if ( genuine) applicants submit as much evidence of romance and a real relationship to convince the UKBA when applying, rather than having to go to tribunals or courts of law and relying on the HO failing to prove it is bogus.
If a couple had lots of evidence of a real romance / relationship but did not send it during the application, because they assumed that the application would be trouble-free, cos they are married, then there is nothing to stop them just re-applying with all the extra ( legally not required) evidence of the relationship just to ease UKBA's doubts.
It is very hurtful and frustrating for innocent and genuine people to be treated as if they are criminals, but it might help them ( emotionally) to remember that there is such a widespread abuse of the system that now the UKBA can no longer trust anyone to be genuine.
( Though it also helps cut the immigration figures if the UKBA also deliberately and unlawfully reject the genuine applicants. But surely they wouldn't do that?????)
My own case will be heard on the 20th of this month, i will be going with my solicitor, my wife, her sister and some of her friends.safr wrote:hello..hop ur ok..what about your hearin today.all gone smoothly?iv no representative..myself,wife and witness and thas all iv got..bit worried what gona happen..please share your experience you been through so it would help alot of people including me who are suffesing from ukba..Good luck and thanks
I have posted that already, one they say the document i provided even from the HMRC can not show them where my wife was residing before she became permanently incapacitated. HMRC show all National Insurance contribution to date. and they also said because i have claim asylum in the country before they deem my marriage will be one of convinience, even when all asylum correspondence from HO was to the same address i was living years all long till now which is my wife address. during the aslum claim my wife have writting to them many time with supporting documents and they are aware of us. I just think they just want to refuse it and delay me more because they know my case may lead or lead to a permanent residence.treefriend wrote:My experience was good. Surprisingly there was no HO representitve and no HO eveidence provided to judge about alleged discrepancies. Judge asked me and my wife various questions bout how we met, who was at the wedding, where pictures were taken and etc. At the end judge said he would give the decision in 2 to 3 weeks. There ws just one difference between ans. Our representitive was happy at the end as he think we have won the appeal and decision will be +ve.
Both joshuaaubin and safr, Please state your reasons of refusals, as it helps people to get in-depth help from real-life experience.
Thnks
I've heard the HO goes into a lot of hearings knowing they cannot possibly win and do not send a representative and cases get thrown out cos the couldn't be bothered to show up.treefriend wrote:Surprisingly there was no HO representitve and no HO eveidence provided to judge about alleged discrepancies
I agree with you to some extend. However, in my case HO even did not send their bundle which i think they must send to all parties. Judge mentioned this in the hearing.nonspecifics wrote:The Home Office don't need to turn up to win; it is up to the appellant to prove their case.
If the Home Office are the respondent , then the Home Office do not need to prove anything.
If the EEA appellant fails to prove their case the Home Office win anyway.
Huh? Why would you say that? As you earlier said, in such cases,nonspecifics wrote:The Home Office don't need to turn up to win; it is up to the appellant to prove their case.
If the Home Office are the respondent , then the Home Office do not need to prove anything.
If the EEA appellant fails to prove their case the Home Office win anyway.
The HO (currently) still has an uphill battle to fight when the accusation is marriages of convenience3.4 Key points
A marriage of convenience is a totally sham marriage entered into solely for
immigration purposes.
The burden of proof is on the Secretary of State
I see you are so called 'member of standing', however u jump to personal arguments very quickly. If you have nothing to contribute to solve people 's imig problems then please stay away. I am sure other people would agree with me....nonspecifics wrote:Don't worry; my comment is not specifically about your case or any other case.
I will not comment on the percentages in your post. Making up figures without data is called speculation and when I have further evidence backed figures from you I will discuss them furthernonspecifics wrote:Don't worry; my comment is not specifically about your case or any other case.
My comment is about the fact that the Home Office does not turn up for Asylum and Immigration Tribunals on quite a regular basis.
If the EEA Directive appellant successfully proves their case or unsuccessfully fails to prove their case is the most important thing.
Whether the Home Office decides to turn up, or not, does not guarantee success for the appellant. Conversely, the Home Office turning up does not mean you should worry that your case is now weaker.
I read before the Home Office did not turn up for about 50% of cases, but I am sure it is a lot less than 50% of appeals that were won by the appellants when the Home Office were the respondents.
Basically, just concentrate on presenting the strongest case possible and forget about whether the Home Office will turn up or not.
