Sorry mate. I did not bring up the statistics and if you have been around long enough you will know that the 'burden of proof' of proving a statistic falls on the person who is possibily making it up, not the person contesting it.There are statistics that have been collected to back up what I said about the Home Office appearances at Tribunals and the % of appeals that are won when represented, unrepresented and paper only , so it's not speculation by me; you can search for them if you like, but it's not crucial to this thread, so I am not going to waste time searching for them.
I read your post again and I still do not feel that your posting was in the same flow as the discussion and think that it is disheartening to posters who do not know better and is looking for advice.My statements did not contradict each other. They have to be read in context following the thread of the discussion.
When the HO rejects an application on the basis of 'Marriage of convenience', it means that they already have proof that there is a marriage/civil partnership/unmarried partnership. Otherwise, the reason for rejection would have been 'Relationship not existing with the EEA national'. The proof of existing marriage/relationship should be in the bundle the tribunal will be recieving from the HO. (See how I am placing my eggs by using the word 'should' instead of'must'). However, while it is a good idea to dispell the allegation of the 'marriage of convenience' by submitting the marriage certificate or similar proofs, I would suggest not to go over board with this because of what you have mentioned-The appellant first has to prove to the tribunal that they are legally married or in a subsisting relationship( and exercising Treaty Rights) so that's the burden of evidence for the appellant - if they do not prove that then they have no grounds for appeal. If they prove they are married ( and exercising Treaty Rights)they have met the burden of proof.
This, I agree withFurthermore, There are examples of the Tribunals rejecting the Reason for Refusal as unlawful then stating that it did not affect the material decision because the appellant did not qualify anyway for some other reason, so the appeal is dismissed even when the Reason for Refusal was wrong.