Irish woman with Albania partner since 2006 cann't get visa

[walrusgumble]

Some people don't see marriage in the same eyes as your self and actually value the sancity of the legal relationship.They actually take it seriously. I can assure you if a marriage registrar got word of this, there would be at least an attempt not to grant (unlikely to be successful) the couple a licence.

I don't know about this - see Judge Hogan's recent decision in Izmailovic's case: http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681 ... ight=0,Ads

At para 30.- "It is clear, therefore, that the marriage of Ms. Izmailovic and Mr. Ads would have been a valid marriage so far as Irish law is concerned, even if it was a marriage of convenience. The Supreme Court’s decision in H. v. S. makes it clear that a marriage which was entered into for the purposes of facilitating immigration into a foreign state was still a valid one, even if (as in that case) the parties had no subsequent contact worth speaking of and never lived together as husband and wife. It must equally follow that a marriage contracted for the purposes of avoiding deportation from this State is nonetheless a valid marriage, assuming that there is no impediment to that marriage within the meaning of s.2 of the 2004 Act.

...
"s. 58 does not confer a free standing power of objection by reference, for example, to some supposed mental reservation on the part of the couple, such as that they were only marrying for immigration reasons. If that were the case then, by the same token, well meaning relatives could object to a proposed marriage on the ground, for example, the bride did not really love the groom and that she was only marrying him for financial reasons or because she simply wanted to escape from a difficult home environment. "

Where did I say the marriage registrar has a free standing right to object?

You do not know about what?


Are you another you is unable to read what is said? If that is the case, is really does raise the question, how the hell are you are lawyer.

I said

"They actually take it seriously. I can assure you if a marriage registrar got word of this, there would be at least an attempt not to grant (unlikely to be successful) the couple a licence"

THat meant, they authorities would try and cause hassle. The words in brackets, "unlikely to be successful" clearly indicates, that while they might try, they would not succeed. They might not succeed because of cases that you suggest and its an infringment of Artilce 12 ECHR.


The words "attempt" does not mean that they could actually object. "unlikley to succed" clearly means that the attempt would be struck down, for the reasons you correctly point out.

THere are too many ticks here to go and spells things out for them. It seems there is.

I did not say, the marriage registrar would refuse to grant a licence and that they will be successful in doing so.

By your logic, you disagree with the veracity of what I said, but then, by using the caselaw, prove that I am correct. Maybe you should read what someone has before deciding what line you are going to take.

You have made a piont, although correct, to a a matter where there was no issue of in the first place. Pointless.

Comment on what is actually said please

[ImmigrationLawyer]

don't want to argue with you, just wanted to bring this case to the attention of people reading the post. V interesting case.

[walrusgumble]

don't want to argue with you, just wanted to bring this case to the attention of people reading the post. V interesting case.

That is fair enough. It is an interesting case, and it is relevant


But don't link it onto to others post in a way that misrepsents what was said.

[fatty patty]

u are here bitching about how te whole world turned on you and u are trying everything u can but nothing works and poor you, unfair world..

That is fair enough. It is an interesting case, and it is relevant


But don't link it onto to others post in a way that misrepsents what was said.

It does not misrepresent at all. You made the point regarding marriage of convenience and state attitude towards it, immlawyer posted a case that smacks of convenience to the bone and yet judge lashed the state for being gungho. i think it is very valid. the OP is atleast in a relationship with their spouse whereas the case mentioned by immlawyer it was not the case. yet you questioned the poor guys credentials of being a true lawyer or not. if the OP goes and marries to bring home her spouse that is some convenience that is i should say due diligence it ain't a sham marriage as suggested. When we talk about marriages there is a difference b/w marriage of convenience and sham marriage. (sham marriage EU men or women is paid and after non-eu person getting papers eu spouse can take a hike....marriage of convenience can be a person is in a strong relationship with their spouse for years and years but didnt marry for their own reasons and now doing so to bring back their loved ones, i dont call it illegal).

[walrusgumble]

u are here bitching about how te whole world turned on you and u are trying everything u can but nothing works and poor you, unfair world..

That is fair enough. It is an interesting case, and it is relevant


But don't link it onto to others post in a way that misrepsents what was said.

It does not misrepresent at all. You made the point regarding marriage of convenience and state attitude towards it, immlawyer posted a case that smacks of convenience to the bone and yet judge lashed the state for being gungho. i think it is very valid. the OP is atleast in a relationship with their spouse whereas the case mentioned by immlawyer it was not the case. yet you questioned the poor guys credentials of being a true lawyer or not. if the OP goes and marries to bring home her spouse that is some convenience that is i should say due diligence it ain't a sham marriage as suggested. When we talk about marriages there is a difference b/w marriage of convenience and sham marriage. (sham marriage EU men or women is paid and after non-eu person getting papers eu spouse can take a hike....marriage of convenience can be a person is in a strong relationship with their spouse for years and years but didnt marry for their own reasons and now doing so to bring back their loved ones, i dont call it illegal).

You should probably not put your nose in. You clearly can't read.

I objected to the assumption made by immigrationlawyer. The relevant posts being 15/6/2011. I made a comment regarding what a marriage registrar would love to do but at the same time briefly acknowledging that she would not be successful.

Lawyer then implied that I had said the marriage registrar would be able to successfully act in a certain way. If I had said that his response would be perfectly correct and in order.

The problem is, he made a suggestion, an incorrect suggestion, that I had stated that the marriage registrar would successfully act a certain way.
A simple reading of my post would make that clear. I responded and rebutted this point.

By all means provide helpful advice, but don't do it on the incorrect pretext of someone's else's post, without being challenged.

That is the only objection to immigrationlawyers response - it incorrectly suggested that I made a certain comment. Other than that, there is no objection

If he wanted to produce this case, there was nothing stopping him from doing so in an independent post. He did not do this and he did not read the post properly, a very important skill for lawyers, I though. If I had made the statement he thinks I said, then fair enough. But it was irrelevant as I did not say it.