| In the case of Quila v Secretary of State for the | | | | was due to start University and that if her husband is |
| Home Department[2009] EWHC 3189, the Court | | | | removed back to Chile, she would either be forced to |
| determined that the Home Office were correct in | | | | abandon her education or be separated from him. |
| refusing a spousal visa for the British wife’s | | | | Nicola Smith, a Deputy Director of Immigration Policy |
| husband, a national of Chile. The Briton aged 18 and her | | | | and Head of the Permanent Migration Team at the UK |
| husband aged 19, fell short of the minimum age | | | | Border Agency commented on forced marriages as |
| requirement that was introduced by the UK Border | | | | follows: |
| Agency for spousal visas in November 2008. The | | | | “The majority of cases of forced marriage that are |
| new requirement was incorporated into the Immigration | | | | reported to the FMU involve South Asian families, |
| Rules (HC 395) at paragraph 277 to read as follows:- | | | | which is partly a reflection of the fact that there is a |
| "Nothing in these Rules shall be construed as permitting | | | | large South Asian population in the UK. However, it is |
| a person to be granted entry clearance, leave to enter, | | | | clear that it is not solely a South Asian problem as the |
| leave to remain or variation of leave as a spouse or | | | | FMU is dealing with more cases from the Middle East, |
| civil partner of another if either the applicant or sponsor | | | | Europe and Africa. (So far this year the country |
| will be aged under 21 on the date of arrival in the UK | | | | breakdown of FMU cases is as follows: Pakistan |
| or (as the case may be) on the date on which the | | | | (59%), Bangladesh (10%), India (8%), Yemen, Iraq, |
| leave to remain or variation of leave would be | | | | Turkey, Somalia all (1%).” |
| granted." | | | | She continued to state that forced marriages are a |
| The reasoning behind the requirement is that it is | | | | breach of international human rights including the right |
| intended to circumvent forced marriages. The couple | | | | to marry and the right to personal liberty and security. |
| challenged the decision by taking judicial review action | | | | The couple’s lawyer argued that the Home Office |
| at the High Court contesting that their human rights had | | | | decision was a disproportionate interference with their |
| been violated and arguing a breach of article 8 of the | | | | right to a family life for the purposes of Article 8 (1). He |
| European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 | | | | argued that it was disproportional on the basis that the |
| provides a right to a private and family life. | | | | parties affected by the age requirement were not in |
| The couple’s lawyer argued that the Home | | | | fact, in a forced marriage meaning that, the Home |
| Office’s refusal to make exceptions to the age | | | | Office should have granted the husband leave to |
| requirement, which came into force five days after the | | | | remain outside the rules in order to respect those |
| couple married, was ‘irrational and | | | | rights. The Court did not accept this argument and |
| unreasonable’. It was argued that, in the | | | | found no breach disproportionate breach of Article 8. |
| circumstances, it was clear that the marriage was not | | | | The decision is susceptible to challenge and may be |
| a forced marriage and that the couple was in a | | | | appealed against. We will endeavour to provide all |
| genuine relationship. The British spouse argued that she | | | | updates on our website in this respect. |