What an absolutely ludicrous situation....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8165684.stm
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.
If she had left they would NOT have been able to marry here or return if married elsewhere and in this country there are legal limits as to the notice you have to give to get married which are more than 7 days.
FFS it does seem like a human should step in here stop for a moment and think. Just let them stay together and married rather than just keep saying the computer says no.
We need rules clearly but we also need to think and apply them this does not strike me as a FORCED marriage which is what the legislation is designed to prevent.
Saying that though might be nice to not be legally allowed to live in the same country as your wife 😉
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 - MemberLeaving 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."
.
Nope i do understand what love is but thinking you could organise all that with only a month left on you r visa is daft not only that just becuase you are in love it doesn't mean that you have to marry stright away does it.
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
So having arrived at the position where when they decided to get married she only had a month left on her visa, what were they supposed to do? ISTM that the course of action they took gave them the best chance of staying together in the UK (and would have worked but for losing photos incompetence by the sounds of things). Any other course of action would still have left them falling foul of the new 21 law, with her unable to get a visa. Irrespective of anything else that happened, that is the point.
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/
For example, top of Page 29: "B.1 PSA 3 Indicator 3: Increase the number of enforced removals and voluntary
departures year on year."