Diego Andres Aguilar Quila, 19, is being refused a fresh visa to live in the UK with his wife, Amber, 18, until they both reach the age of 21
A couple in a genuine marriage lost a High Court battle today against a Government immigration policy aimed at combating forced marriages.
British bride Amber Aguilar, from Friern Barnet, north London, faced the dilemma of having to choose between her career ambitions in the UK or living abroad with her Chilean husband because of the policy.
The ‘heartbroken’ 18-year-old chose to live with 19-year-old Diego Andres Aguilar Quila, who had to leave the country recently after his student visa expired.
Under the immigration policy, Diego is being refused a fresh visa to live in the UK with his wife until both reach the age of 21.
Christopher Jacobs, appearing for Diego and Amber, argued that the teenagers were being penalised because of an 'irrational and unreasonable' refusal by the Home Secretary to allow exceptions to the rule in cases where marriages plainly were not forced unions.
He argued there had been a violation of the couple's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
But today Mr Justice Burnett ruled that the Home Secretary had not acted irrationally and the legal challenge must be dismissed.
The judge said 'no lack of respect under Article 8' had been demonstrated.
The judge upheld submissions by Government lawyers that it was not 'disproportionate' to require couples to live abroad for a period to meet a policy with 'the legitimate and important aim of combating forced marriages'.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) brought the test case, warning that the Government's inflexibility was 'tearing families apart'.
The JCWI said Amber and Diego were currently sharing a single bed in a cramped home in Santiago where they were unable to find work and there was no welfare system.
In court they were described as 'the unlucky victims' of the new 'no under 21s' policy, which took effect five days after their marriage in November last year.
Amber had the dilemma of having to choose between continuing to live with Diego in Chile, or pursuing a three-year UK university degree course to fulfil her ambition of becoming a modern languages teacher.
Her lawyers said the kind of university course which would allow her to follow in the footsteps of her parents - her mother is a school head and her father a deputy head - was not available in Chile.
Illogically, the policy was being rigidly and inflexibly imposed 'because it is said that rigid application will deter forced marriages in other communities'.
The judge was told the couple met in 2006 and began living together in 2008.
In the past, once a wife reached 18, she would have been entitled to apply to have her husband live with her in the UK.
But just five days after their wedding the rules were changed so both partners in a marriage had to be 21 before a visa could be issued to a foreign national.
Rejecting their application for judicial review, the judge said the question for the court was whether the Home Secretary had irrationally failed to exercise his discretion in favour of the couple.
It was accepted the marriage was not forced. It was also accepted that Amber would 'encounter educational problems and their consequences' because of the Home Secretary's decision.
The judge described the couple as 'the unlucky victims of the rule change'.
But it could not be said the Home Secretary had acted irrationally in failing to grant Diego permission to remain in the UK 'outside the rules'.
Later, Amber was described as 'heartbroken' over the judge's ruling that she cannot live with her trainee electrician husband in the UK.
The couple now plan to take their case to the Court of Appeal with support from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.
JCWI chief executive Habib Rahman said: 'We will continue to support Amber and Diego in their fight to live in the UK as a family.'
The campaign group points to a report by Professor Marianne Hester - commissioned by the Home Office, but never published.
They say it showed the new legislation would not help the victims of forced marriages, and would actually do more harm than good.
If the couple are unsuccessful on appeal, Amber will have to decide whether to remain in Chile with her husband or to return to the UK to attend a university offering the appropriate course for her teaching career.
Amber said: 'This is a huge disappointment and I am heartbroken.
'I cannot live without Diego but I desperately want to start my education so I can teach languages in the UK.'
Amber's mother, Helen Jeffery, 57, from Friern Barnet in north London, who is headteacher at the George Mitchell All-Through School in Leyton, east London, said: 'We are absolutely devastated.
'The Home Office claims it was trying to prevent women being forced into marriage to allow them a chance to get an education.
'The cruel irony is that the actual effect of the rule is to force my daughter to live thousands of miles from her family and prevent her going to university in the UK despite the fact nobody would ever suggest her marriage was anything but genuine.'
Amber's father, Rupert, 47, a deputy head at Wembley High Technology College, said: 'Our daughter is a British citizen and we believe she has a right to live with us in Britain with the man she has chosen to marry.
'The Government appears to be using the emotive issue of forced marriages as an excuse to introduce draconian immigration laws
0 comments:
Post a Comment