Vinod Bhatia v Immigration Appeal Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1985 |
| Date | 25 July 1985 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
O'Connor, Goff, Nourse LJJ
M Beloff QC and V C Kothari for the appellant.
J Laws for the respondent.
For the issues of law and the relevant facts, see the report of the judgment of Forbes J of 3 April 1985, above.
Held by the Court of Appeal: 1) On the straightforward and clear meaning of paragraph 41 of HC 169, the rule presumes that the primary purpose of the intended marriage is for the applicant to gain admission to the United Kingdom.
2) In considering an application under the rule, an entry clearance officer is not limited to such evidence as the applicant may put before him but is entitled to make enquiries of his own and test such evidence as the applicant chooses to put forward.
3) What the applicant himself says will be of first importance but the history of the other party will be relevant, as will be the reasons of the parents for arranging the marriage.
4) Those parts of the judgment of Forbes J where he purported to give guidance to entry clearance officers on how they should do their work should be disregarded.
O'Connor LJ: On 17 March 1983 the entry clearance officer in New Delhi refused to grant entry clearance to the United Kingdom to the appellant. His appeal against that decision to an adjudicator was dismissed on 23 March 1984. His appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was dismissed by a majority on 1 October 1984. On 3 April 1985 Forbes J refused his application for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The present appeal is against the decision of Forbes J.
This is a test case on the criteria to be met by men, subject to immigration control under the Immigration Act 1971 and the rules made thereunder, who seek to enter the United Kingdom for settlement as fiancs of women who are British citizens settled in the United Kingdom. We were told that there are some 200 cases awaiting the decision in the present case.
The immigration rule governing this case is found in paragraph 41 of HC 169 of 1983. That paragraph provides:
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 the entry clearance officer is satisfied:
(a) that it is not the primary purpose of the intended marriage to obtain admission to the United Kingdom; and
(b) that there is an intention that the parties to the marriage should live together permanently as man and wife; and
(c) that the parties to the proposed marriage have met.
Where the entry clearance officer is satisfied that all the conditions at (a) to (c) above apply, an entry clearance will, subject to the maintenance and accommodation requirements of this paragraph, be issued provided that the woman is a British citizen. An entry clearance should not be issued unless the entry clearance officer is satisfied that adequate maintenance and accommodation will be available for the financ until the date of his marriage, without the need to have recourse to public funds.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute. The applicant, a citizen of India, applied for entry clearance in New Delhi in February 1981 to enable him to come to the United Kingdom to marry and settle with Vijay Kumari. Vijay Kumari is a woman settled here; she had come to this country in 1970, married and had a child who was born in 1971. Unfortunately her marriage broke down and she was divorced in 1978 with the custody of the child. It is rare for an Indian Hindu woman who is divorced to find another husband. Her parents, who are in New Delhi, made enquiries in this country for a possible husband without any success. In 1980 the parents advertised in the Hindustani Times for a husband for their daughter; the applicant, whose family also lived in New Delhi, was selected from among those who replied to the advertisement. Vijay visited Delhi later in 1980 for the wedding of a sister and met the applicant. The marriage was arranged between the parents, and entry clearance applied for. The applicant was interviewed in New Delhi. Vijay was interviewed by an immigration officer in England. Both gave full information about their families and how the marriage had been arranged, and no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Rajput
...experienced in this class of case. 22 The effect of rule 54 was considered first of all in the case of Bhatia which is reported in (1985) Imm. A.R. 50. In point of fact the actual rule before the court on that occasion was rule 41 of House of Commons Paper 1691 but it is accepted that for ......
-
Fawehinmi v Secretary of State for the Home Department
... ... Court of Appeal Neill, Nicholls, Butler-Sloss LJJ Abisola ... Immigration Act 1971 ss. 3(8), 33(1). The appellant appealed ... ...
-
Mohammed Saftar (Petitioner) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [Court of Session (Outer House)]
...Mitchell for the petitioner C Campbell for the respondent Cases referred to in the judgment: Vinod Bhatia v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [1985] Imm AR 50. R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte A run Kumar [1986] Imm AR 446. Immigration Appeal Tribunal v Hoque & Singh [1988] Imm AR 216. Pr......
-
In Re Du Gui Fang
...burden to satisfy the immigration officer of the requirements for gaining entry. See R. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Bhatia, [1985] Imm AR 50 and R. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex parte Kumar, [1987] 1 FLR 444. At p.52 in Bhatia, Goff L.J., as he then was, affirmed the right o......
-
Terrorism in the name of religion.
...Resurgence," Los Angeles Times, 26 January 1992. (31) For a useful overview, see Pranay Gupte, "The Punjab: Torn by Terror," New York Times, 9 August 1985; Vijah Singh, "Les sikhs, une Secte Traditionnelle Saisie par la Terrorisme," Liberation, 1 November (32) For example, this uncompromisi......