COA rule suspended

[Smit]

So the COA rules have been suspended for marriages. If the Home Office decides not to appeal against this ruling, I guess the Home Office will restrict FLR(M) applications to post only so that they can scrutinise such applications better to weed out shams.

This ruling shows that the Home Office is not always right and should be used as ammo in the challenge against the retrospective application of the 5 year ILR rule for employment related categories.

[Khurram]

So the COA rules have been suspended for marriages.

Any idea what will be the status of the filed COA applications lying pending with the Home Office?

And would it be possible to have the source of the news.

Regards

[Smit]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2127502.html

Read both pages of the story.

[olisun]

I think the govt. will extend the law to all candidates irrespective of their nationality, religion etc

[Chess]

I think the govt. will extend the law to all candidates irrespective of their nationality, religion etc

Are we becoming a 'Nanny' state if that applied to everyone?

Soon you may be requested to have home office permission before you are allowed to have a child

[first2last4]

I think the govt. will extend the law to all candidates irrespective of their nationality, religion etc

Are we becoming a 'Nanny' state if that applied to everyone?

Soon you may be requested to have home office permission before you are allowed to have a child

[Kayalami]

General consensus in the immigration field is as per Olisun's comments - the government will upscale the COA to all. If you recall the probation period used to be 12 months for spouses and 24 months for unmarried partners. IIRC the threat of judicial review saw the Home Office apply the same standard to all applicants under the veneer of 'minimising sham marriages'. This sentiment is only compounded by the fact that the ruling does not in itself say the COA is illegal but rather discriminatory by not placing a standard requirement on a particular party to the marriage process. I continue to hold the position that this ruling in no way influences the 4-5 yr change...the latter is a fundamental component of long term government immigration policy to inlude as a percusor to the identity regime.

[John]

I agree, Kayalami, the Government will introduce CoAs ... for all non-EEA citizens .... even for Church of England marriages.

As regards Church of England marriages, the Government took the "easy route" out last time, IMHO. That is, if anyone wants to marry anywhere else apart from a Church of England Church then they need to go to a Register Office. That applies whether the marriage is to take place in the Register Office and any other authorised place.

But those wanting to get married in a Church of England Church do not need to go to the Register Office. They merely need to have their banns read on three different Sundays and the law assumes that the intended marriage has been given sufficient publicity. However in these days of falling Church congregations it is actually a nonsense.

But also, actually, how many people actually go to the Register Office and look at all those notices posted there?

Anyway, I think CoAs will be introduced but with Church of England clergy not being allowed to read banns for a non-EEA citizen unless that person has a suitable document. Because it would be unreasonable to expect C of E clergy to be experts in recognising the needed documentation, maybe a non-EEA citizen intending to get married in a C of E Church will need to go to a designated Register Office, and that Register Office will then post some sort of document to the Church concerned.

[JAJ]

I agree, Kayalami, the Government will introduce CoAs ... for all non-EEA citizens .... even for Church of England marriages.

And presumably, the "no-switching" rule stays in place in the meantime?