Sterling and Law Associates LLP have been successful in appealing a refusal to grant permanent residence to a former spouse of a EU citizen. The Secretary of State (Respondent) refused to grant permanent residence to a Ukrainian national who is a former spouse of a EU citizen because it was argued that the marriage was one of convenience.
The major reason it was deemed to be a marriage of convenience was that the Appellant had a post-divorce relationship with a woman and their child, whilst in a relationship with the EU citizen concerned. Moreover, the Appellant failed to give accurate and consistent responses to questions at the interview conducted by an Immigration Officer.
Marriage of convenience definition
The Judge carefully considered what is meant by “a marriage of convenience”, concluding that a marriage is considered one of convenience if it is contracted for the sole and predominant purpose of gaining an immigration advantage. It was noted that it cannot be considered a marriage of convenience simply because it brings such an advantage.
Even though the Appellant continued his relationship with previous spouse at the time, the Judge found that there was no suggestion they lived together at the time he was in a relationship with a EU citizen.
In fact, there was a significant amount of documentary evidence showing that the marriage was genuine.