Select Committee on Home Affairs Additional Written Evidence


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





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 23 July 2006