38. Supplementary memorandum
submitted by Brides Without Borders
ANONYMOUS CASE
STUDIES FROM
MEMBERS OF
"BRIDES WITHOUT
BORDERS"
Case 1
My husband and I married in April 2004. On
the grounds of our marriage, we applied for variation of leave
to remain in May 2004, and sent IND the £155.00 fee. We never
received a reply, and our documents have never been returned.
I wrote and telephoned many times but was only told, "Your
details are with a case worker, there is no time limit for us
to give you a decision".
One year later in May 2005, we went to see a
solicitor to enquire if there was anything we could do, also my
husband wanted to work and contribute fully to the marriage. He
informed us that IND would not give us a decision and the only
option would be for my husband to leave Britain voluntarily and
apply for re-admission as my husband. To do this, he would have
to obtain a visa from the British Embassy in Jordan.
We were led to believe this would be straightforward—"have
a six week holiday in Amman". So we gathered the relevant
documents/photographs and statements from family and friends as
to the "genuine state" of our marriage. We completed
everything with legal support, and prepared to go, however the
strain caused me to collapse. We decided because this was so important
to us that my husband should continue as planned, so he left the
country voluntarily on the ** September 2005.
When he landed in Amman, the Jordanian authorities
at Queen Alia Airport detained him and questioned him for a few
hours as to his purpose in Jordan. Despite him showing legal letters
etc regarding his visa application, they treated him with hostility,
ridiculed him for not speaking Arabic, and by their sheer numbers,
intimidated him. They confiscated his passport, suggesting it
was fake and threw him out of the airport with someone else's
luggage, despite his protests. He was given a letter to collect
his passport on Wednesday ** September at 9.00 am.
When he contacted me, he was distraught and
frightened. I calmed him. The next day he found a taxi driver
who helped him retrieve his luggage—for a price.
On Wednesday **, he went to collect his passport,
he was kept waiting until 4 pm (he attended at 9 am as told).
This again delayed his application being lodged at the visa centre.
His accommodation was only booked for three nights as we were
told that there would be no problems and the procedure was very
straightforward. He then had to book accommodation on a nightly
basis, again helped by the taxi driver he paid.
The application was lodged on Thursday ** September,
and he was told to go back to the visa centre on Sunday ** October
for an answer. During this time, he stayed in his hotel room,
only going out to buy food. This was very isolating and depressing
for him. When I spoke with him his mood was very low. I was concerned
for him.
On ** October, he was asked to attend for interview
on ** October at the Embassy, again he had to find more accommodation
and remain in Amman. Again he remained isolated in a room. He
was interviewed on ** October and flew out to Kurdistan on **
October to await a decision.
I telephoned regularly to see how the application
was progressing. I was thankful that he was safe with his family.
On the ** November I telephoned the Embassy,
to be told the visa was ready to collect from Monday ** November.
However, uncertainty reared again when Amman was bombed. The Embassy
closed and would not discuss visa collection until the **, so
plans were put on hold. Finally, we arranged collection when they
re-opened on ** November and my husband flew into Amman on the
** November.
Because of his previous experience in Jordan,
a family friend who spoke Arabic accompanied him. Again the authorities
tried to take his passport but his friend bargained and gave his
instead to allow my husband to collect his visa. The authorities
would only return his friend's passport when they saw my husband's
visa, which was collected on Thursday, ** November. His friend
retrieved his passport on Friday ** November and flew home on
Sunday ** November. My husband was due to fly home Monday ** and
asked for a 4 am alarm call—which he never got—and
subsequently missed his flight.
He paid to transfer to another flight and spent
his final night in Amman walking around as he had no money left
for a room. The hotel had denied he asked for an alarm call.
When he was queuing to pass through to the departure
lounge in the airport, he was called by two guards, "hey
Iraqi, come here". They took his passport. My husband then
produced his visa. They then said "Why did you not tell us
you have a British visa—on your way sir!"
He landed safely at Heathrow on ** November
at 10.30 am. He was interviewed with great courtesy by British
immigration and allowed entry.
When his visa expires we now have the uncertainty
of applying for "indefinite leave to remain". We have
been through hell for two years—instability and lack of
normality—the visa expires Nov 2007. Financially, it
took all our savings, emotionally it drained us, but our marriage
is strong and we will get through this.
I wish wholeheartedly that immigration had dealt
with our application in 2004. I don't understand why they
didn't. It only took the British Embassy five weeks to complete
their enquiries, process the application and grant the visa, so
why could we not have been dealt with in country?
Finally, can I say that the British Embassy
in Amman were wonderful. At times I was extremely stressed and
they were patient, professional and understanding, and I thank
them for that.
Can I also add that I have not put our names
to this statement as we are still in a difficult position with
no certainty, even after all we have been through. I don't want
to jeopardise our future stability but assure you this is a true
account of events.
Case 2
I wish to submit the following regarding my
separation from my partner through forced removal in November
2004. As my partner and I are both extremely concerned for his
safety, I refer to him throughout as Mr A and note that his removal
was to a central African country.
Mr A had been in a relationship for a relatively
short period of time when he was detained in August 2004, unexpectedly
when he went to "sign" with the immigration authorities.
He was a failed asylum seeker who had been in the UK since May
2000. He was detained almost four months, much of that in Dover,
a very considerable distance from my home in Manchester. Since
his removal we have been able to communicate only by email and
he is dependent upon me for money. I accept that having been removed
it will be difficult for him to return to the UK. Mr A considers
it too dangerous for me to join him, and frankly I feel it is
unreasonable for women in, or facing, my situation to have to
make the choice to stay in the UK or go abroad. Unless he is able
to settle in another nation and I also leave behind my own life
here, it is unlikely that I will ever see him again.
I acknowledge that states have the right to
exercise immigration policy as they see fit and furthermore that
the government has every right to cut down on sham marriages.
It is right that they should do so. However I do not consider
it acceptable for any society that has the pretension to respect
family life to separate loving relationships. Often I feel very
grateful for the fact that Mr A and I have no children. Since
he was detained I have suffered from severe depression and occasional
nightmares. I am pleased that I have only to take care of myself.
I have been separated from my partner for nearly
18 months. I am in tears about our separation not infrequently
and we continue to worry very deeply for his safety. Hearing that
he is surviving enables me to continue in some form but the worry
does not go away. At times it is difficult for him to communicate.
A final point on this would be to say that, like many detainees
facing removal, Mr A became extremely agitated and distressed
as his removal date came closer. My memories of the last time
I actually saw him are of trying to comfort him in this distress.
I am mentioning this to make an honest point regarding the strain
it places upon us as a couple and both as individuals, not as
a cynical attempt to gain sympathy.
Since the launch of Brides without Borders it
has been an immense support for me to meet other women in similar
situations to myself. I feel that the government needs to acknowledge
the immense strain that the threat of indefinite separation places
upon relationships and family life. I can not express how deeply
the experience of seeing him detained in five removal centres
and then his removal affected me. Furthermore, the strain does
not stop when the person is removed from the country. At this
stage, while the UK Government may be able to wash their hands
of the person, for the partner left behind the strain may increase
with the separation and that does not even take into account the
uncertainty and fear that may be common to both parties. My partner
returned to a nation that still feels the effects of decades of
upheaval.
I have heard that the government has informed
many women in my situation that it would not be unreasonable for
them to follow their spouse/partner and relocate to whichever
country he came from. I feel it is totally unrealistic, inappropriate
and in many cases, ridiculously contradictory to expect people
to abandon their entire lives here to live in a nation that may
be extremely dangerous and which the Foreign Office may recommend
avoiding altogether. Furthermore, if the government does indeed
respect that citizens have the right to a private/family life
then the choice is surely academic because no one should have
to make it. I accept the point about sham marriages but if a relationship
is shown to be genuine, then rights to family and private lives
should surely prevail.
I am not sure whether had Mr A been in the UK
for reasons other than claiming asylum things might have been
different but I have often wondered whether the treatment meted
out to women whose partners are in the asylum process is a relative
factor. I feel the authorities treated Mr A contemptuously and
by proxy, me also. Moreover, it seems that British women are being
asked to consider a prospective partner's immigration status when
dating, and I do not feel that should be particularly relevant.
While I acknowledge that every couples' situation
varies, the argument for keeping families and couples together
is surely extremely strong. Mr A and I never had the chance to
develop out relationship, something that could have become a marriage.
Mr A failed to stay in the country as a result of his asylum application
having been turned down. I was told that neither his relationship
to me, nor his medical qualifications, which I understand at the
time he left the UK was in serious need of, was enough to stop
him being removed. Until this all happened, I was a fairly typical
young woman who believed that Britain would respect human rights
and defend people in need of protection. Like many others I have
seen the reports in the tabloid papers that demand an ever-harsher
stance on immigration, particularly asylum. I think it deeply
ironic that British women like me end up with severe heartache,
depression and indefinite separation from those we love as a direct
result of that legislation that we were told was to protect British
people such as ourselves.
I would like to ask what the government considers
that the ever-growing number of women in my situation will actually
do if they are separated from their partners indefinitely? Something
I am sure of is that it might be possible for the government to
forget all about the person who is removed but they can not expect
the separated parties to do the same. I feel that I am living
proof of that. I do not think it is acceptable for the government
to play God with people's relationships. What depresses me more
than anything is that Mr A and I were cheated out of the chance
to develop our relationship and I think for couples who have been
together longer or are married, the prospect of separation is
more than intolerable. I do not feel that the government has any
right to separate couples if their relationships are shown to
be genuine and substantial.
I would like to see some acknowledgement that
it is not unheard of for asylum seekers to form partnerships with
citizens of the host community and this should be respected, particularly
if there are children involved. I believe that the right of British
citizens to family/private life has been eroded through legislation
that divides families and loving relationships and that if a relationship
is genuine then it should not be placed in jeopardy by immigration
policy. To me this is not an outlandish or unreasonable request,
merely a basic human right.
NOTES
1. I have chosen to write this anonymously
due to concerns for my partner's safety. Moreover my situation
is obviously different from other women in Brides without Borders,
as my partner has already been removed from the UK. My involvement
with BWB stems purely from a desire not to see any other couple
going through what happened to myself and Mr A.
2. I have referred to British women and
their foreign partner throughout this document. This is not to
discriminate against British man/foreign woman couples; it is
just that from my own experience, I have yet to meet such a couple
in this situation.
Case 3
1. This statement is written in support
of the "Brides without Borders" statement previously
submitted to the committee. Although it details one particular
case, many of the difficulties encountered are typical of those
met by other members of the group.
CASE HISTORY
2. I am a British citizen who has always
lived and worked in the UK. Almost four years ago I married an
Iranian man who was at that time caught up in the asylum system.
I have two children who are now 28 and 24 and elderly parents
in their late 70s.
3. I met my husband in January 2001 when
I was working as an ESOL lecturer at a Further Education College
in Manchester. At that point he had been refused asylum after
his initial interview but had appealed and was awaiting the date
of his hearing. He was not a student, but was introduced to me
as someone who would be able to teach me some basic Persian in
order that I could help a group of students with very poor levels
of English. We became friends and subsequently the relationship
developed.
4. In February 2002 we decided to get married
and, as I was by then aware of his immigration status, I sought
legal advice on his situation and consulted the Home Office Telephone
Advice line for help. I was informed by his solicitor that he
had a good case to be granted asylum in the UK (his brother having
been given refugee status in France and his father having been
killed by the Iranian authorities). I was also given to understand
that Home Office policy at that time was that provided that the
Home Office were satisfied that we had a genuine marriage he would
be given right of residence as the spouse of a British citizen,
and that if he was given right of residence he would be able to
withdraw his asylum appeal.
5. We spoke to the Home Office, who confirmed
what the solicitor had said and asked that we complete the relevant
form FLR(M) and send it to the Initial Consideration Unit of the
Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) at Croydon. We did
so in July 2002—after our marriage on 1 June 2002. We
received an acknowledgment from the Home Office with an indication
that the application would be dealt with within three weeks.
6. In September 2002 we were shocked to
have our application rejected as "invalid" on the grounds
that we had not included my husband's passport. As an asylum seeker
he would have been required to surrender his passport if he had
had one—which he did not . We immediately contacted our
MP and asked for her help. She then wrote to the Home Office on
our behalf and was told that they had no record of our application
to have our marriage recognised for residence purposes.
7. Meanwhile our solicitor also contacted
the Home Office and was asked to send them all the documentation
(some of it original paperwork). He faxed them a request on October
2002 asking to which department the paperwork should be sent but
never received a response.
8. Unfortunately our solicitor suddenly
left the practice and we were allocated a new "assistant
solicitor". We were then told that the appeal would be held
on 21 February 2003: the Home Office had not considered our marriage
application nor the effects on my husband's case. Because we were
not notified directly of the date and time of the hearing but
only through our solicitor, we felt that we should stick with
our existing firm of solicitors even though we were unimpressed
by their apparent lack of expertise and the level of professionalism
shown by the new solicitor.
9. The new solicitor concerned decided that
as both my husband and I were working he did not qualify for legal
aid. It seemed strange to us that we were recognised as a married
couple for the purposes of legal terms but not so far as status
in the country was concerned. Since that point we had to pay all
our legal fees ourselves.
10. The hearing before the adjudicator was
held on 21 February 2003. The Home Office did not send a representative,
but the adjudicator heard the case nevertheless. My husband's
asylum claim was rejected by the adjudicator; but he was allowed
to remain on human rights grounds, in accordance with Article
8 of the European Convention (respect for private and family life).
The adjudicator decided that:
. . . it is quite clear to me that on the basis of
the facts as found by me the decision to remove him will amount
to an interference with his right to respect for family life .
. .
for reasons set out in her witness statement the
appellant's situation is inextricably linked to that of his wife
and her own right to respect for family life stands to be violated
by the decision to remove him to Iran.
The adjudicator also noted that my husband was
a credible witness and that our marriage was a genuine and subsisting
one.
11. We were obviously delighted with the
result and, although we asked the solicitor to appeal to the Immigration
Appeal Tribunal on asylum grounds, we were advised that it was
not necessary and that the Home Office would not appeal. At the
end of the 10-day period allowed for either party to appeal we
were informed by the solicitor that the Home Office had not appealed;
a few days later, however, we were told that the Home Office had
in fact appealed.
12. The grounds of the Secretary of State's
appeal was that in finding that there were no entry clearance
facilities for an application to come to the UK as a spouse of
a British citizen the adjudicator had erred on the facts. A letter
from the British Embassy in Tehran was included as evidence although
it had no bearing on my husband's situation. No other findings
of fact by the adjudicator were challenged. At the subsequent
Immigration Tribunal hearing in July 2003, the Home Office appeal
was successful and the case was remitted to the same adjudicator
for reconsideration of the Article 8 claim.
13. We were told that the re-hearing would
be held within weeks; and the solicitor tried to chase it up.
For about four months during this period the British Embassy in
Tehran was closed for visa applications because of security concerns,
which meant that my husband could not in any case have gone to
Tehran and applied for a visa, although the British Embassy had
reopened before we got the hearing.
14. The re-hearing was held on 23 March
2004 and the determination dated 13 April 2004 was described as
supplemental and to be read in conjunction with the adjudicator's
previous determination. On the same evidence he now found that
it would not be unreasonable for me to relocate to Iran and "submit
to the way of life there" or for my husband be returned to
Iran where, according to the Home Office's own country report,
he could be imprisoned for three years and then apply for a passport
(which he had previously been refused) and an exit visa, then
apply for a spousal visa to return to the UK.
15. This second determination contained
many errors, inconsistencies and omissions, and the adjudicator's
findings were illogical. For example, in his first determination
the adjudicator found that my husband was a known political activist:
in the second he found the opposite. In order for me to live in
Iran, I would have to acquire Iranian citizenship, which would
entail my applying for an Iranian passport with photographs of
me wearing the hijab, a certificate of my conversion to Islam
and a copy of our religious marriage certificate. The British
Embassy in Iran website warns people with dual nationality that
they cannot offer protection in the case of difficulty. I would
therefore argue that this is an unreasonable expectation on the
part of the UK authorities.
16. Having become completely disillusioned
with the legal support we were receiving, we felt that we should
change solicitors. The new firm applied to the Immigration Tribunal
for permission to appeal which was refused on 29 July 2004. Our
reasons for the appeal were described by the tribunal as "rather
prolix". We then applied for a Statutory Review of this decision
and this was granted.
17. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal full
hearing was held in London on 4 October 2004. After less than
five minutes of discussion the tribunal allowed our appeal—although
it took nearly four months for the written findings to be promulgated.
At the beginning of May 2005 my husband was given two years' discretionary
leave to remain in the UK. This was despite the Home Office having
issued guidance in April 2005 that Article 8 claims would be given
three years' discretionary leave.
18. It may seem, on the face of it, that
we had won our case; but the fact that my husband will have to
reapply after two, four and six years to continue with the discretionary
leave means that this is only a temporary solution. It appears
that each application for discretionary leave will be subject
to "active review" and the Home Office will need to
consider fresh evidence at the time that the application is made
as to why further leave should be granted Before my husband can
apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK he must have served
at least six years discretionary leave and by this time we will
have been married for nine years. In making these further applications
we will incur further legal expenses and no doubt be subject to
further stress.
THE HOME
OFFICE AMNESTY
19. In 2003 the Home Office announced a
family amnesty for asylum seekers who had been in the country
before October 2000. My husband met all the criteria for this
amnesty except that my younger son (whom we were supporting at
university at that time) was a few months older than the declared
upper age limit for children.
20. As a family we could not understand
why the rights of British citizens were considered to be less
than those of failed asylum seekers. It is very galling to note
that recent reports show that some families with older children
have been allowed to stay in the UK and can now apply for British
citizenship and that nearly 17,000 families have benefited from
the amnesty.
RESTRICTIONS ON
APPLICANTS
21. Whilst in the asylum system my husband
had to report every month to the reporting centre in Salford.
Although I was not allowed to go into the building with him, on
many occasions I waited outside to ensure that if he should be
detained I would be aware of the fact.
22. On one visit we asked that he be allowed
to report a day earlier than normal as we wished to go to London
to visit my sister. We were abruptly informed that this was not
possible and that the term "reside" meant that my husband
should sleep every night at the address that the Home Office had
been given. This means that they expected us not to travel beyond
half a days travel from home.
23. As my husband does not have a passport
we are unable to travel aboard for holidays or to visit his brother
in France.
24. My husband has set up a very successful
Corgi-registered heating, plumbing and electrical business; he
supported himself through college and obtained his UK qualifications
by working as a waiter. He would like to expand his business but
feels unable to do so by the fact that his immigration status
remains uncertain.
COSTS
25. I have no way of calculating the costs
to the taxpayer of the various tribunal hearings; but our own
costs to date are nearly £10,000.
MARRIAGE APPLICATION
26. In February 2003, at the request of
the Home Office we submitted an updated marriage application.
Although we received acknowledgement in April 2003 stating that
the application was indeed valid and that a decision would be
reached by January 2004, we have not yet had our application considered.
Our solicitors, MP and my mother have contacted the Home Office
on our behalf but have not had any indication of when it will
be dealt with. On 1 June 2006 we will be celebrating our 4th wedding
anniversary.
RECOMMENDATIONS
27. The Home Secretary should be asked for
precise details of how many British citizens are married to asylum
seekers and failed asylum seekers.
28. The Home Office should offer an amnesty
to those where a genuine and subsisting marriage exists and where
there are no adverse implications for national security.
29. The Home Office should be asked to clear
the backlog of marriage applications quickly and to process future
applications in a timely fashion.
30. The Home Office should be asked to review
its procedures and record-keeping in connection with applications
of the nature described above.
31. The prime function of HMG should be
to protect its citizens. It should not, therefore, expect British
citizens to go and live with their spouses in countries with a
poor human rights record; instead, spouses of British citizens
should be able to apply for UK visas from within the UK.
Case 4
I am a member of the group Brides without Borders,
we are trying to make people aware of what immigration control
does to our lives. Our husbands were/are over here claiming asylum.
My husband had severe depression because of his personal circumstances
in his country and the way the system treats people. I am also
on anti-depressants (if you require any evidence of the things
I am about to state, please do not hesitate to let one of the
group know and I will provide the written evidence). I would like
to forward to you my own personal concerns. I am married to an
Iraqi citizen who is over here claiming asylum. My husband had
an appeal over points of law, because there was no funding and
the solicitor could not get a psychiatrist to do a written report,
he was turned down. How is an asylum seeker supposed to pay for
a report costing maybe £1,000+. I feel torn between my husband
and my son, as the Government are saying I can return with him
(in the current climate a ridiculous statement to make), even
were it better out there I would have to give up my job (managing
director), my son (he would not only lose his mum but his dad
too, my family, house etc). I have a court order which says that
I cannot leave the UK for more than a month without my son's biological
father's permission, what do I do? I have a letter from Tony McNulty
saying "Whilst this may in some cases constitute a breach
of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the separation would
be temporary; the breach would therefore be proportionate when
weighed against the need to maintaining effective immigration
control." He has admitted this would infringe on my human
rights, he also said re the situation regarding my son "IND
have considered these representations carefully but they do not
consider that the representations constitute sufficiently exceptional
or compassionate reasons for permitting Mr. xxxxx to remain in
the United Kingdom." I am not sure how long Mr McNulty considers
temporary (and even temporary is a breach of Human Rights) why
they don't just grant leave to remain now? instead of leaving
the UK only to return with a piece of paper. My husband cannot
get a visa from Iraq as the British Embassy in Bagdad has been
shut for years, Jordan (not his country) was closed due to the
bombings, why should he have to go to a foreign country where
he can obtain a visa although he isn't a citizen there, yet it
can't be issued here where he also isn't a citizen. If I hadn't
got my son or the court order saying I can't take him out of the
country for more than a month, I could go to Europe and be allowed
to stay with my husband, yet the UK wants to deport a British
Citizen effectively and leave my son without a mother, or me without
a husband.
In light of these further details, any further
help or advice you can give will be much appreciated.
I am also considering taking this case to the
European court of Human Rights, under Article 8 and possibly Article
2. Previous cases I have seen that have been allowed were Moustaquim
v Belgium judgment of 18 February 1991 and Boultif v Switzerland
application no 54273/00 and Case C-109/01. Another case allowed
in Britain was similar to our situation, but the couple weren't
married KJ (Entry Clearance Proportionality) Iraq CG (2005) UKIAT
00066. My husband came in to the UK in February 2002, he was told
it would take six weeks or so to decide on his case, he got refused
asylum in 2004 about 18 months later, other people came into the
UK after him and had a decision before him. We married in July
2004 and applied for the marriage leave. He had his appeal in
December 2004, I kept asking for the decision, and was sent it
in February 2005 (because he didn't have a psychiatric report,
they had a report from his psychiatrist, but that wasn't enough
they wanted an independent report and the solicitor couldn't get
one done, with the money and time restraints-there was a waiting
list if he could be seen in another county I was told). I asked
my MP to contact the Home Office as we hadn't got a reply on the
marriage leave. The solicitor got a phone call in March 2006 asking
for the application to be re-submitted at a cost to us as my Birth
certificate, decree nisi, decree absolute, change of name back
to my maiden name (deed poll) etc had been lost by the Home Office.
We still haven't got a written decision on the marriage leave
nearly two years after we married. Maybe you can see why we feel
frustrated with the Home Office and the system. The government
are telling everyone to protect their ID and then the Home Office
lose it. This is not the only case—how do they manage to
lose so many precious documents when they should be held in safe
place, or kept with the file at all times? We are becoming suspicious.
This situation not only affects the couples
but also the parents, grandparents and children of the couples
affected. My mum lives in Hall Green Birmingham and my Dad lives
in Tamworth. Could you imagine how they would feel if their daughter
and grandson had to go and live in Iraq, at the moment they are
on the verge of civil war. The Home Office should treat our cases
with compassion, we would not worry about going back to countries
such as America to obtain entry clearance but these people would
not have left their country and families if there had not been
compelling circumstances for them to leave. I always thought the
UK before I was involved in this situation allowed the husbands/wives
of UK residents to reside in the UK, the reason they did not get
entry clearance was they were claiming asylum. If I was Polish,
French etc, my husband could live with me in the UK, but as I
am a British citizen we could uproot and move to France etc and
be together, yet my circumstances do not allow me to do this as
my son's biological father will not allow me to do this. WHAT
DO I DO?? Why can't the Home Office show a little bit of flexibility
and grant my husband a period of discretionary leave after all
this time?
April 2006
| 
