Mohd Meharban v Entry clearance officer, Islamabad
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 October 1988 |
| Date | 06 October 1988 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Professor D C Jackson (Vice-President) J L S Harrison Esq, Miss P G Liverman JP
S Choudhury of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service for the appellant
D Wilmott for the respondent
Cases referred to in the determination:
Rewal Raj [1985] Imm AR 151
Balvinder Singh (unreported) (4039)
Jaffer (unreported) (4284)
Hashmi (unreported) (4975)
Fianc application for entry clearance for marriage requirement of the rules that the parties should have met the meaning, in that context of have met. HC 169 (unamended) para. 41(c).
The appellant a citizen of Pakistan was refused entry clearance for marriage. The entry clearance officer was not satisfied on the issue of primary purpose, nor was he satisfied that the parties had met within the meaning of the rules. The adjudicator found that as children the sponsor and her fianc had played together, but that was the limit of their acquaintanceship. He dismissed the appeal: the sponsor could not recall what the appellant looked like or any other of his characteristics.
Before the Tribunal it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the adjudicator had erred in requiring the meeting to have occurred sufficiently recently for the parties to have some recollectionrelevant tocontemplating the marriage which has been arranged for them. For the entry clearance officer it was argued that the rule required as a minimum, that at the date of decision each party could point to the other as a person known and identified.
Held:
1. There was no requirement in the rules that the parties should have met in the context of marriage or marriage arrangements.
2. Nevertheless the requirement is related to the marriage in question: it requires at least an appreciation by each party of the other in the sense of, for example, appearance or personality.
3. In the present case neither party seemed to have any knowledge of the other and the adjudicator was correct to dismiss the appeal.
Determination
The appellant, a citizen of Pakistan, appeals against the decision of an adjudicator (Mr D J Parkes) dismissing his appeal against the refusal of an entry clearance to allow him to marry his fiance, Tazim Akhtar, and settle in this country.
As the adjudicator said, the appellant applied for entry clearance on 10 April 1985 and therefore the rule applicable to his case is that set out in HC 169 paragraph 41 prior to amendment by HC 503. Paragraph 41 reads:
41. A man seeking to enter the United Kingdom for marriage to a woman settled here and who intends himself to settle thereafter should not be admitted unless he holds a current entry clearance granted to him for that purpose. An entry clearance will be refused unless...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
X City Council v MB and Others
...[1985] 2 All ER 733, [1985] Fam 106, [1985] 3 WLR 125, [1985] FLR 1097, CA. Meharban (Mohd) v Entry Clearance Officer, Islamabad [1989] Imm AR 57. M v B, A and S (by the official solicitor) [2005] EWHC 1681 (Fam), [2006] 1 FLR MB (an adult: medical treatment), Re[1997] 2 FCR 541, [1997] 2 F......
-
X City Council v MB, NB and MAB [FD]
...Morse, on 20 March 2000 and dismissed in a determination dated 13 April 2000. Applying the test set out in Mohd Meharban v ECO Islamabad [1989] Imm AR 57, Prof Morse held that MAB and R had not "met" within the meaning of para 290(ii), their only meeting having been in 1983 when MAB was age......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-10-20, OA/02379/2014
...requirement to have “met” is not a requirement that they should have met in the context of their marriage (see Meharban v ECO, Islamabad [1989] Imm AR 57). However, it is not sufficient that the parties met when both parties were infants and so could not be said to have “made one another’s ......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2014-09-01, OA/03196/2013
...14–15 and 18. The Respondent now seeks to challenge the Judge’s analysis citing the cases of Raj [1985] Imm AR 151 and Meharban [1989] Imm AR 57. The decisions in each of the cited cases are necessarily fact sensitive. The decisions also significantly predate the use of means of communicati......