EA005232019 & EA016202019

The Appellants in this linked appeal are a wife and husband, in what purports to be a genuine and subsisting marriage such that the 'family member' provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 ('the Regulations') would be engaged. The Respondent regards their marriage to be one of 'convenience', contrived for the purpose of circumventing immigration control. This was the matter in issue before the First-tier Tribunal.

The first Appellant is a national of Italy, born on the 25 th June 1987. Her appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was brought against the Respondent's decision of the 17 th January 2019 to remove her under the powers contained in section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, those powers being exercised pursuant to Regulations 23, 26 and 32 of the Regulations on the grounds that she is deemed to have 'misused the right to residence in the United Kingdom' by having entered into a marriage of convenience.

The second Appellant is a national of Pakistan, born on the 22 nd January 1988. His appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was brought against the Respondent's decision of the 15 th February 2019 to refuse to grant him a residence card as a family member.

On the morning of the 17 th January 2019 the two were awoken by the noise of eight immigration officers demanding entry to their property. The officers were admitted. The Appellants were separated and asked a series of questions, with no interpreter present. The first Appellant states that she informed officers that she was unwell and that she was in no fit state to be interviewed. The interview proceeded but neither Appellants had their answers checked or read back to them. The second Appellant was taken into custody (he was back at home within a week after a Judge granted bail).

This was the competing evidence submitted to the First-tier Tribunal. Both Appellants, and their supporting witnesses, then gave oral evidence. Having heard that evidence the Tribunal determined that this was indeed a marriage of convenience, contracted with the connivance of both parties. In reaching that finding the Tribunal gave significant weight to the interview transcripts but found there to be further discrepancies arising in the testimony of the parties at court. The appeals were thereby dismissed.