Rewal Raj v Entry clearance officer, New Delhi
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 September 1985 |
| Date | 03 September 1985 |
| Court | Immigration Appeals Tribunal |
Immigration Appeal Tribunal
D L Neve (President), Mrs J M Abrahams JP, Mrs J H M Goodchild
Case referred to in the determination:
Balvinder Singh (4039) unreported.
K Drabu of The United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service for the appellant.
P Curwen for the respondent.
Marriage to a woman settled in the United Kingdom applicant required to satisfy entry clearance officer inter alia that the parties have met meaning of have met in the context of the rule HC 169para 41(c).
The appellant was a citizen of India, the fianc of a woman settled in the United Kingdom. When he applied for entry clearance in New Delhi his application was refused on two grounds: the entry clearance officer was not satisfied that the primary purpose of the marriage was not for the appellant to gain admission to the United Kingdom, and he was not satisfied that the parties had met. Before neither the Adjudicator nor the Tribunal was the issue of primary purpose argued or resolved: the appeals were determined on the question of the meaning of the phrase have met in the context of the rules. The facts, set out in the determination, were not in dispute. The parties, at the date of the decision under appeal had only met some nineteen years earlier, when the appellant was aged four and the sponsor two or three.
Held: In the context of the rule, met implies the parties in some way had made one another's acquaintances and it followed that a meeting when both parties were infants of such tender ages as three and four did not meet the requirements of the rule.
Determination
The appellant is a citizen of India who applied to the entry clearance officer in New Delhi for entry clearance to enable him to come to this country to marry a Miss Sukhvinder Kaur Kang. His application was refused on two grounds:
1. The Secretary of State was not satisfied that it was not the primary purpose of the intended marriage to obtain admission to the United Kingdom; and
2. He was not satisfied that Rewal Raj and Sukhvinder Kang had met.
The appellant appealed to an adjudicator against the refusal. His appeal was heard by Mr E J T Housden and dismissed on 26 February 1985. Against Mr Housden's determination the appellant appeals to the Tribunal.
The appellant's appeal was dismissed by Mr Housden because he supported the respondent's finding that the appellant and his fiance had never met. This was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2015-10-20, OA/02379/2014
...met when both parties were infants and so could not be said to have “made one another’s acquaintances” (see Raj v ECO, New Delhi [1985] Imm AR 151). Whether it was established that they had “met” was a question of fact. The judge was entitled to find, in my view, on the limited evidence bef......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2014-09-01, OA/03196/2013
...Rules: see determination at paragraphs 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 The decisions in each of the cited cases are necessarily fact sensitive. The decisions also significantly pred......
-
Mohd Meharban v Entry clearance officer, Islamabad
...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......