[Closed] Quite amazing incompetence, even for our government...

What do they mean by "technically" overstayed her visa? If she was a funny brown colour and didn't speak much English we would be saluting the Border Agency for ensuring that visitors did not overstay their visas.

This entire thing comes from the fact that she overstayed. She didn't have to, but she decided to, because she was special. It's all very dramatic as a tale of young love, but the only problem comes from that decision that the date on her visa end date was smehow optional. 🙂

arse

This entire thing comes from the fact that she overstayed. She didn't have to, but she decided to,

[i]" the authorities lost their passport photographs causing delays "[/i]

You're quoting selectively ermie. Her permission to marry was delayed. She had a week to leave the country when the permission came through. She decided not to. Instead she decided to overstay and get married. Silly girl.

Absolutely everyone, without exception, thinks they're special and that immigration rules don't apply to their particular case. Until they get deported.

It's an anomalous case, but at root it comes from a daft decision and failing to understand the absolute nature of a visa end date. 🙂

I thought we beat the Nazis?!

bigD speaks da troof

to understand the absolute nature of a visa end date.

as handed down by god almighty ?

You're quoting selectively ermie.

Yes I am. I selected the bit which said the authorities caused the delay in their marriage arrangements because they lost the passport photographs which they were given.

Did you want me to quote the whole article ?

No Simon, it's just a silly little rule, like the prohibition on mtbs in the 3 Peaks. Try taking this view next time you're in the USA. 🙄 🙂

No ernie, just the relevant bits. 🙂

Even if she had been in-country when she applied for further leave to remain as a spouse, would she still not have been refused due to the limitations of switching? If she had a visit visa, switching from visitor is very restrictive and most leave applied for which ends in settlement has to be granted out-of-country i.e. entry clearance is required and she would have need to leave the UK whether she overstayed or not and just getting married in the UK is irrelevant.

I'm not 100% sure, TBH, nuke but I don't think so. She had to apply for permission to get married from UKBA. I think that once you've got that permission you can switch in-country on marriage. But applying 1 month from one's visa end date is always going to be very risky, sadly.

Take this lesson, readers of STW. Anything involving UK immigration will take twice as long as you could possibly imagine. 🙂

Shes should be bloody glad she got off so lightly!

Remember what happened to the last person who decided to overstay his visa!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Ruddy Canadians, coming over here marrying our Welsh.

I think there are two different issues here. For her, personally, the decision to overstay her visitor's visa in order to get married was bloody stupid and is actually the cause of much of her problems, rather than her age. I can understand the UK Border Agency taking a hard line on overstayers of any visa for any reason, although if you look at the number of deportations that have occurred they rarely enforce visa limits so it is slightly hypocritical for them to take such a hard line in this case.

The wider question is whether the age limit of 21 is 'right'. If he had gone to Canada and they had been married over there, would she have been able to obtain a visa to come and live with her husband in the UK prior to her 21st birthday? The article suggests that this would not be possible, in which case the legislation is bonkers.

The Government's own research suggested the age increase would not be effective in protecting those forced into marriage and would penalise those who enter into marriage voluntarily. The 'trust us, we know better' Labour Government ignored that research (as they've done on numerous other pieces of legislation) and, here we are with a case exactly as predicted. Well, d'uh.

The most disturbing element of this is that, yet again, the Government has introduced flawed legislation going against advice they have commissioned and then refused to do anything to correct it when the predicted problems arise.

Oh, and BigDummy is absolutely correct. based on extensive experience over recent years, if you are doing anything with UK Immigration, take their estimated processing time and allow double from the point of application. Anything else and you'll wind up in trouble.

But four days after their marriage[the one delayed by the loss of the photos], new immigration rules were brought in to stop forced marriages, which meant that if Rochelle left the country she would not be allowed to return until she was 21.

Anyone with half a brain who wants their non-EU other half to be able to live with them in the UK makes sure they don't overstay their visa. Depending on the rules on the marriage approval (i.e. not one of those where you're not allowed to leave the UK), she could even have done a trip to France or Ireland and got a fresh stamp.

The legislation is dumb, but overstaying her visa was also dumb. She's lucky, they don't even have to give her the indefinite leave to remain either as the overstay could be used as reasons to refuse her entry.

silly him i thinks..

it would be bags packed and off to canada for me if i could find some female stupid enough to even consider getting hitched

Reading the whole artcal it quotes the imigration as say that the reason she was deported is becuase she over stayed her visa and not anything to do with her age. If i have read it right then she was here illegally when she got married and because of the new law she is not allowed back with a marrige visa till she is 21.
Leaving it a month before your visa runs out to try and sort out a marrige is a bit daft any way as even just appling through the lcal registary office can take that long.

Leaving it a month before your visa runs out to try and sort out a marrige is a bit daft

Another person who doesn't understand what love is. Quote :

[i]"Rochelle had a six-month visa and only intended to stay a month, but the couple fell in love and decided to get married and stay in Wales."[/i]

.

a daft decision and failing to understand the absolute nature of a visa end date.

Nothing is absolute. She could have been allowed to stay.

[b]The UK Border Agency say "the couple's situation is not a compelling enough reason for an exception to be made in this case". [/b]

I'm sure most normal people would beg to differ, and would agree that discretion should have been exercised.

[img] [/img]

Oh, they were in love! Why didn't they say? Well, that settles it, they must be allowed to do whatever they want!

🙂

Yes it's funny how 'emotions' sometimes play a significant part in the decision to get married, often at the expense of practicality and logistics.

Specially when it involves those who are young, foolish, and in love.

TF for bureaucrats - eh ?

If she was a funny brown colour and didn't speak much English we would be saluting the Border Agency for ensuring that visitors did not overstay their visas.

Bang on the nail as usual.

Try taking this view next time you're in the USA

is that the yardstick for democracy or sense ? I don't think they'd let me in but I don't want to go...

ernie_lynch - Member

Leaving it a month before your visa runs out to try and sort out a marrige is a bit daft

Another person who doesn't understand what love is. Quote :

"Rochelle had a six-month visa and only intended to stay a month, but the couple fell in love and decided to get married and stay in Wales."

.

The UK Border Agency say "the couple's situation is not a compelling enough reason for an exception to be made in this case".

I'm sure most normal people would beg to differ, and would agree that discretion should have been exercised.

Nail, head, the, on, hit - rearrange to create a frequently-used phrase.

It's the usual case of HM Gov PLC using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The reason she overstayed her visa was UKBA's fault (they lost her photos). The reason she's not allowed back in is the legislation on forced marriages, when clearly it's not a forced marriage.

Seeing as it's a 'minor inconvenience', perhaps the idiot who came up with that (in the extremely unlikely case that they have a spouse) should be separated by a £2000 round trip from their other half for 18 months, just to see how minor said inconvenience would be?

thinking you could organise all that with only a month left on you r visa is daft

Roughly what proportion of people who are denied residency under the current immigration laws [b]do not[/b] have a heart-breaking human interest story which might well make a feeling person say "oh for heaven's sake, just let them stay" do you reckon? I've a hunch it's a pretty small percentage.

🙂

How many are only denied residency due only to a new law intended to stop people doing something they're not doing?

'Tis a fair point. 🙂

I find it hard to understand why you find this amazing. Governments have always been like this, in fact they are famous for bureaucratic cock-ups resulting in silly stuff. I for one certainly am not amazed 🙂

The other daft thing about this situation is that they can now legally live together anywhere in the EU except the UK.

It does all sound like legislation drawn up quickly with no thought to the unintended consequences, and then applied to the letter by jobsworths even though the legislation specifically leaves room for flexibility. All perfectly standard for modern Britain.

Seeing as it's a 'minor inconvenience', perhaps the idiot who came up with that (in the extremely unlikely case that they have a spouse) should be separated by a £2000 round trip from their other half for 18 months, just to see how minor said inconvenience would be?

I'd happily pay £2000 to be seperated from my spouse for 18 months..... can't see what the fuss is about, that would be an inconvenience free outcome IMHO........

Um, yeah. Maybe UKBA was actually doing him a favour...

See thats all these things need..... a modicum of common sense applied and everythings cushty 8)

It's a bit unlike you to apply that though! 😉

That law was introduced to protect girls from certain communities from forced marriages.

This girl is patently not from those communities, it is acknowledged that she was not in need of that sort of protection, and the reason she was not married in time was bureaucratic delay.

Dumb application of the law, or dumb drafting of the law.

zokes - £2000 round trip? You need to fly less business/first class. A charter fare to Canada can be had for under £500.

She's far to ugly. We need some more attractive immigrants to improve the gene pool. Job well done I say.

[i]Quite amazing incompetence, even for our government...[/i]

I am confused by the title. Why is it?

Surely the bloke could up sticks and go to live with her over there?

I mean, thats what loves all about isn't it?

You are easily confused, hora. It is after all our government which passed the law responsible for this whole mess.

zokes - £2000 round trip? You need to fly less business/first class. A charter fare to Canada can be had for under £500.

The deals looking better by the minute, and I thought £2000 was bargain!

Oh and by the way zokes, thats the thing about common sense.... its not very common!!

It is after all our government which passed the law responsible for this whole mess.

And yet, they gave the UK Border Agency discretionary powers to deal with any possible anomaly where there is clearly no question of a 'forced marriage'.

And yet, they gave the UK Border Agency discretionary powers to deal with any possible anomaly where there is clearly no question of a 'forced marriage'.

I wonder if HM Govt. also set a bunch of arbitrary 'targets' for Border Agency managers to meet?

Oh it seems they did, as laid out in their (laughably entitled) "business plan":

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/businessplan/

UKBA.HOMEOFFICE.GOV.UK "http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/businessplan/april2009march2012/ukborderagencybusinessplan.pdf"

For example, top of Page 29: "B.1 PSA 3 Indicator 3: Increase the number of enforced removals and voluntary
departures year on year."

I wonder if HM Govt. also set a bunch of arbitrary 'targets' for Border Agency managers to meet?

Another issue altogether.

For example, if the government expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of rape cases which ended up in court (whether or not the dissatisfaction was justifiable) you would hardly expect the CPS to start prosecuting people who they know to be innocent.

The only aspect of this case that is unfortunate for this couple is the change in the law with regard minimum age for spouse visas to 21 (bear in mind Denmark sent their minimum age to 25!) just after they were married.

They have used the media to highlight their case but she was going to have to leave the UK anyway if she wanted to apply for leave as a spouse of a British citizen. She cannot switch: as a visitor it is written that your intention should be to leave.

In fact, until she's 21, she could go out and apply for leave as a visitor...or a student, or worker etc. Or he could go and live in Canada or wherever with her. Whole thing is a media circus over a fairly undeserving case.

Whole thing is a media circus over a fairly undeserving case.

It might well be a 'circus' but the clowns are clearly the UK Border Agency.

Quote :

[i]"She has become the first unintended victim of changes to UK immigration laws which were designed to protect young British Asian women from being subjected to forced marriages."[/i]

This is very obviously [u]not[/u] a case of 'forced marriage'.

And the law [u]is not[/u] being used as intended.

[i]Quote :

"She has become the first unintended victim of changes to UK immigration laws which were designed to protect young British Asian women from being subjected to forced marriages."[/i]

It was designed to protect women regardless of race. Whether the reasons for the law change was based on protecting specific nationalities is irrelevant...the law can't discriminate on race.

Think of all the different laws based on age: here we have a new law saying the minimum is 21, Denmark 25, etc What if they had got married in a country that allowed marriage at 16 and the law remained as before at 18...should we allow them to apply for leave as a spouse?

I've had to deal with UKBA extensively and can without a doubt say they are incompetent clowns

They work from "the rules" with no discretion allowed (unlike when it was the Home Office) - So now your genuine case's get lumped in with the fake ones etc....And its a one size fits all thing

[i]They work from "the rules" with no discretion allowed[/i]

Why have rules if you got discretionary? I suppose it would be better if all immigration officers at port just used their discretionary regardless of whether that was completely inconsistent with other units.

The Forced Marriages Act changed the law and UKBA is now responsible for adhering to the law in the same way that if they raised the age of driving to 21 in the UK, the DVLA would have to enforce it.

Why have rules if you got discretionary?

To deal with anomalies.

Not really rocket science is it ?

[i]To deal with anomalies.[/i]

Each and every case is different so how do you define 'anomalies' whilst managing to maintain consistency in the decision making process throughout an organisation? It might not be 'rocket science' but defining when discretionary should be applied is a minefield IMHO and should be reserved for cases far more deserving than this one.

For example nuke - The policy which this young couple are caught up in means that the Husband in effect has to leave his own country to enjoy his married life or deportation by proxy of a British citizen. Any reasonable person could see that the marriage is subsisting and therefore discretion should be applied, or do you agree that if British people don't like it they should **** off to the country of there spouses?

I used to be a junior counsel to the crown (C panel) and saw hundreds of cases like this (based on the Mahmood principle). Women and Men were being sent back to there country and made to apply for entry clearance (sometimes waiting years) even though they had 99.9% of the criteria required.

Case law is turning on this principle (default by proxy) but not enough

Another anomaly is the UKBA applying rules to an application that was not made under them

defining when discretionary should be applied is a minefield IMHO

Not in this case IMHO. Nor I suspect, in the humble opinion of most other people.

It's hard to imagine a case more obviously [b]not[/b] 'forced marriage'.

The UKBA should have used their discretionary powers for that reason. Plus, because they managed to screw everything up for the couple by losing their passport photographs.

[i]Any reasonable person could see that the marriage is subsisting and therefore discretion should be applied, or do you agree that if British people don't like it they should **** off to the country of there spouses?[/i]

Right lets go back to my previous example of if they were married in a country that allowed marriage at 16 and lets say the marriage was subsisting and it was not forced. So they can prove all this and then apply for entry clearance to the UK, should discretionary be shown? No because the law states 18 and they'd be refused. End of. Now the law is 21.

I'm not debating the principles behind the Force Marriage Act, I'm arguing that UKBA is there to ensue the law is adhered to and discretionary is inappropriate in this case because it is not sufficiently deserving IMHO.

[i]Not in this case IMHO. Nor I suspect, in the humble opinion of most other people.[/i]

So what about all the other people who can now not apply until 21; should we show them discretion? What makes this case so unique? That they managed to get the BBC to highlight their case?

TBH, you're coming across a tad racist.

The forced marriages act, whilst a deserving principle is ill thought out and catches out "real marriages".

If the couple were to pursue the case as far as possible I've no doubt they'd win on articles 8,12 and 14 of the ECHR (as were the Govt on their previous marriage rules)

Why should a British person be allowed to marry another British person when they're both 16 but, if she's a scum bag foreigner he cant marry her till she's 21?

[i]TBH, you're coming across a tad racist.[/i]

WTF. I find that insulting as I'm arguing applying the law. You try and have a intelligent debate and it just ends up in insults. FFS.

[i]If the couple were to pursue the case as far as possible I've no doubt they'd win on articles 8,12 and 14 of the ECHR (as were the Govt on their previous marriage rules)[/i]

I've no doubt they wouldn't.

It was a joke ffs. And the law in itself is racist (within a strict definition)

Right lets go back to my previous example of if they were married in a country that allowed marriage at 16 and lets say the marriage was subsisting and it was not forced. So they can prove all this and then apply for entry clearance to the UK, should discretionary be shown? No because the law states 18 and they'd be refused. End of. Now the law is 21.

Nuke - did you read the article? The point here is that they have been given leave to marry by the UK authorities, and they would be allowed to live anywhere in the EU other than here because they are legally married. If they had married elsewhere in the EU they could live here legally. The only problem is someone is inapproprately applying a rule that was intended to cover a completely different situation without using the leeway that the law specifically built in to avoid this kind of problem. Besides which, you can get married at 16 in the UK perfectly legally.

Ernie - if you think middle managers wouldn't avoid using discretion so as to help them meet their targets, then you have a different experience of middle managers to me. The CPS situation you quote is different in that the CPS have to balance bringing cases that they can win versus ones they can't realistically win ('guilt' is not relevant). In this situation, someone at the bottom will have been told not to use the wriggle room the law allows by a superior who has targets to hit.

[i]Nuke - did you read the article? The point here is that they have been given leave to marry by the UK authorities[/i]

Yes thanks 🙂 but no they didn't get given leave to marry: she had leave as a visitor and she was granted a certificate of approval which allowed them to marry...no further leave was granted.

[i]they would be allowed to live anywhere in the EU other than here because they are legally married[/i]

Under EU law, not domestic legislation of other EU states

[i]he only problem is someone is inapproprately applying a rule that was intended to cover a completely different situation without using the leeway that the law specifically built in to avoid this kind of problem.[/i]

Discretion should be used in the most unique circumstances. Given there are possibly hundred/thousands who can now not apply until they are 21, this case is not unique and therefore not deserving of discretion

[i]Besides which, you can get married at 16 in the UK perfectly legally.[/i]

Oops, fair enough

Besides which, you can get married at 16 in the UK perfectly legally.

Oops, fair enough

I'm guessing nuke you've studied some law. I said this earlier

Why should a British person be allowed to marry another British person when they're both 16 but, if she's a scum bag foreigner he cant marry her till she's 21?

I'm also guessing you'll never get a training contract, think outside of the box..

[i]I said this earlier[/i]

You said other things earlier that to me prove you're not worth discussing anything with.

Ernie - if you think middle managers wouldn't avoid using discretion so as to help them meet their targets, then you have a different experience of middle managers to me.

Who said I thought 'middle managers wouldn't avoid using discretion so as to help them meet their targets' ?

😕

It hardly makes it acceptable though, does it ?

Any more than the CPS pursuing cases which they cannot realistically win, simply to comply with targets.

Claiming you were 'forced' into making an unreasonable decision due to the need to comply with targets is a pisspoor excuse IMO.

And whether the targets are reasonable or not, is a completely different question altogether.

You said other things earlier that to me prove you're not worth discussing anything with.

I'm trained to get you to bite and make a fool of yourself

Seriously, if your looking at a career in Law, I wouldn't bother.

[i]That I'm trained to get you to bite[/i]

Wow...insulting people to make them bite. So clever.

[i]make a fool of yourself[/i]

😆 Me the fool!?!

Wow...insulting people to make them bite. So clever.

So what's your reason for insulting people then ?

I'm sure you'll agree that, "[i]you're not worth discussing anything with[/i]" is fairly insulting.

You could have, not said anything.

Actually what I said earlier was...

[i]You said other things earlier that to me prove you're not worth discussing anything with. [/i]

in reference to the fact he had called me 'a tad racist': I find that far more insulting. Throw in something like this instead of engaging in a decent bit of debate. Oh well

Wow...insulting people to make them bite. So clever.

TBH, looking back on your posts you clearly have a problem with immigrants and also suck up to authority.

I bet you're a young conservative?

I bet you're a young conservative?

Now that isn't very nice.

😐

[i]TBH, looking back on your posts you clearly have a problem with immigrants and also suck up to authority[/i]

I disagree: I don't believe I have made any statements that would be pro/anti immigration aside discussing the specifics of this case and how the law applies.

[i]Now that isn't very nice.[/i]

We agree on something 🙁

You both think they deserved discretionary and I don't because I don't think their case is unique to warrant discretion. I'm baffled why it has to be twisted into insults and this is disappointing but there you go.

I haven't insulted you, merely making an observation and debating with you?

Forget about "the rules" The Home Office work on the basis that they deny everything until they are forced to retreat, for e.g The Gurkha's is a massive case in point. Twice they were defeated in court and each time they screwed them over.

I don't think their case is unique to warrant discretion

Not unique in targeting a girl who is clearly not the victim of a forced marriage ?

Or not unique in that, the UKBA are always losing people's passport photos ?

❓

[i]merely making an observation[/i]

Oh so on what basis did you form the opinion I was 'a tad racist'; as I've said, I don't believe I have made any statements that would be pro/anti immigration aside discussing the specifics of this case and how the law applies. Do you not find it insulting to be accused of being racist?

@ernie: as I said, given there are possibly hundred/thousands who can now not apply until they are 21, this case is not unique and therefore not deserving of discretion. It is debatable whether the photos caused sufficient delay as to stop her from getting married, returning to her home country and then applying for entry clearance in time before the change in law.

It is debatable whether the photos called sufficient delay as to stop here from getting married

It meant they only had one week to arrange their marriage. I think most reasonable people would agree that Rochelle Wallis should have had her visa extended to compensate for the UKBA's cockups and incompetence.

.

Do you not find it insulting to be accused of being racist?

Not I directed at me I know, but I certainly wouldn't feel insulted if some punter on an internet forum accused me of being a racist. I might find it amusing though.

"I bet you're a young conservative?"
Now that isn't very nice.

"It is after all our government which passed the law responsible for this whole mess."
And yet, they gave the UK Border Agency discretionary powers to deal with any possible anomaly where there is clearly no question of a 'forced marriage'.