Bride May Be Removed from the U.K.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Yes, it's true. The couple has been married for 45 years and the Canadian bride must prove that her affection for her husband is genuine and not just an attempt to live in England. As the British government observed, 'Maria Summers had her application for a visa formally declined in 2014 on the grounds that she and her husband David had not provided enough evidence to prove that their relationship was both ongoing and emotionally supportive.'

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... fectionate

[can123]

Clearly this couple have not complied with UK law and, if they don't, she should be deported. It seems very suspicious to me that her initial stays in the UK have been under the guise of "tourist". Why hasn't she made an application on the basis of being married ? She is free to do as she wishes and if she wants a tourist visa she may apply for one but there has to be a limit of the number of tourist visas granted. The simple message is to comply with the law and make a proper application. That she is Canadian is of no relevance.

Reporters rarely do their jobs properly and very little can be regarded as the truth. If a proper application has been made as a wife why is it that the couple have failed to provide the necessary evidence ? Ordinarily it's a very simple thing to do. Have they been living apart for thirty years ? Who knows ? I for one would not let her in until she obeys UK laws.

[Zidane]

Its a very strange ruling......there must be something missing here,surely ?
Theyve been married for 45 years and have a 42 year old son.
A bit difficult for them to prove "affection" now.The husband is 70 and she must be in her 60's at least.
Its certainly a bit late for them to start trying for a second child !
The husband is caring for his mother who has cancer,so you would think the wife would be allowed to remain on compassionate grounds at the very least.
They have their own home in Hereford,so its not as if they are renting at the UK taxpayers expense.
Theres got to be something more to this story when you consider some of the people who have been allowed to stay in the UK.

[can123]

Theres got to be something more to this story when you consider some of the people who have been allowed to stay in the UK.

Yes, there is bound to be more to it than we know. The most likely explanation is that the reporter has been economical with the reported facts and has relied heavily on the "affection" aspect to create a story. Clearly they have not convinced the UK Border Agency and if they cannot do so then back to Canada she goes.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

They lived in Canada until they decided to retire in the United Kingdom. He got permission, but she did not not, and will not until she can prove that theirs has been a long-lasting and affectionate relationship. The fact that they have been married for 45 years should count as something worthwhile.

[jai yen yen]

Well I don't think she is a terrorist or looking for a green card or similar to work, I doubt she has a criminal record and is a danger, she appears to be healthy. They have been legally married for 45 years and a have a 42 year old son from that marriage. They want to be together in England which tells me the relationship is still ongoing as she could chose to stay in Canada which is a better place to live in my opinion if she did not want to be with her husband anymore. Hard to understand why this is happening as well as Canada and England are tied together.

[can123]

I will believe that the UK authorities are acting properly until there is evidence to the contrary. It is almost certain that the full facts of this case have not been made known by the reporter. It makes an interesting story but is too silly to be true. There is more to this case than meets the eye.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

There is something out of whack here for sure that raises one's suspicions. It is too bad that the British Government could not have been clearer or more precise for the reasons that she must provide proof that she is in a stable and loving relationship with her spouse of 45 years.

[can123]

The UK Immigration people should not discuss cases at the whim of some newspapers in Canada. The law is that they must be satisfied as to the validity of the application and they do not, nor should they, consult or debate with others in coming to a decision. There is a right of appeal which apparently has been exercised. Perhaps this couple will present new/additional evidence now ? Clearly the evidence provided to date falls short of what is required.

When I brought my wife to the UK I had to do a great deal of work to provide the necessary evidence. These Canadians should do the same. If they cannot be bothered to do this, the wife should be deported.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Yes, but there needs to be some clarity about exactly what convincing evidence a couple that has been married for 45 years needs to produce. Of course, the British government might have some solid reasons for their refusal; however, at the moment they just look silly.

[can123]

Yes, but there needs to be some clarity about exactly what convincing evidence a couple that has been married for 45 years needs to produce. Of course, the British government might have some solid reasons for their refusal; however, at the moment they just look silly.

There are very clear guidelines as to what constitutes proper evidence. I know because I abided by these and provided it. The most likely thing to have happened in this case is that the Canadians have been too lazy to provide it and, if it exists, they will "pull their fingers out" and give it to the Appeal Tribunal.

There is a possibility that this woman does not deserve to be allowed to stay in the UK. The change of name referred to in the article is highly suspicious. What would happen if she had been living with another man for thirty years ? I don't know the facts and shouldn't speculate, however, I have faith in the officials. Why are they making an apparently simple case one which had to go to appeal ? There is something we do not know about and the officials do not look silly.

If the woman should win her appeal it will not mean that the officials were at fault initially. Evidence of a relationship is required and a marriage certificate of itself is worthless. Time for the Canadians to do some work.

[GT93]

Yes, I would think they just didn't provide enough paperwork (i.e. evidence). They probably assumed the sheer length of their relationship and a couple of documents sufficed. I think the Border Agency goofed and exercised its discretion unwisely. It is possible some mandatory documents were omitted so that the answer had to be "no".

[maaka]

dont generally get a five hour grilling, mug shots, and fingerprinted, unless you have a murky past..

[Barney]

I took this photo of a sign at the domestic airport in Bangladesh.
Some married couples get into Britain whether she wants to or not. No evidence of love required.

[thaiguzzi]

Ah, those damn Canadians. Should have been Nigerian, Somali, Syrian. Would have got straight in. Council house provided, and could have claimed benefit for the 42 year old son.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

There is something we do not know about and the officials do not look silly.

Of course they look silly which is one of the points of the article. It is written to look like a simple case that the British bungled owing to a bureaucracy that does not use common sense.

However, I tend to agree that there is more to this than meets the eye. The husband, for whatever reason, made it in and can take care of his ailing mother. The wife did not, and now must prove that their relationship is genuine. What does that entail? Is it the same criteria that a newlywed couple from outside the U.K. must provide...photos from the wedding, testimonials from friends that their relationship is real...details about the honeymoon, guest lists from the reception et al?

The point about the name change is a good one. Why was that needed? Were they Nazis? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it will be interesting to learn the conclusion to this tale.

[can123]

Of course they look silly which is one of the points of the article. It is written to look like a simple case that the British bungled owing to a bureaucracy that does not use common sense.

I had a job in part of that bureaucracy and I can assure you that things are rarely as simple as they seem. The officials are perfectly correct in insisting that these people satisfy the conditions. For one reason or another they have failed to meet them up to now. The country cannot take the easy way out. Laws must be obeyed and if this couple cannot give the appropriate evidence immediately then there is something very fishy about their claims. I love the UK and only want people to enter it if they respect our laws.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

I believe you.

Unhappily, both Canadian and British immigration departments have let people in that do not always respect our laws.

[jai yen yen]

Of course they look silly which is one of the points of the article. It is written to look like a simple case that the British bungled owing to a bureaucracy that does not use common sense.

I had a job in part of that bureaucracy and I can assure you that things are rarely as simple as they seem. The officials are perfectly correct in insisting that these people satisfy the conditions. For one reason or another they have failed to meet them up to now. The country cannot take the easy way out. Laws must be obeyed and if this couple cannot give the appropriate evidence immediately then there is something very fishy about their claims. I love the UK and only want people to enter it if they respect our laws.

For some reason I am not surprised that you had a job in that part of bureaucracy.

[can123]

For some reason I am not surprised that you had a job in that part of bureaucracy.

Are you capable of writing anything which is not unpleasant in tone ? Do you think you have the necessary intellect to perform contemplative work ?