OA051782014

The Entry Clearance Officer observed that in order to demonstrate that there had been a genuine and subsisting relationship since 27 February 2013, the appellant had provided some handwritten greetings cards. He had not provided any evidence, such as a stamped envelope, to demonstrate that these cards were ever sent. It was also noted that the cards did not exhibit any signs of where that would indicate they were posted through the international postage system. He said that he spoke to his sponsor via telephone, Skype and email, but he had not provided any documents to demonstrate this.

The appellant's appeal came before Judge A W Khan sitting at Richmond Magistrates' Court on 3 March 2015. Both parties were legally represented. The sponsor gave oral evidence, and she produced the originals of telephone records from Lycamobile as evidence of telephonic contact with her husband in Pakistan.

In answer to questions from the Tribunal, the sponsor clarified that although she had been married at Ilford Registry Office on 22 January 2013, there was no Islamic wedding thereafter. The witness statement was wrong when she said that they had lived with each other from January to February 2013. The appellant was living at another address. She believed her marriage was genuine, and she believed that the appellant held the same view.

In closing submissions on behalf of the Entry Clearance Officer, Mr Collins submitted there was little evidence of a genuine and subsisting marriage, and the parties to the marriage had never cohabited. There was no witness statement from the appellant and no statement from the person who had introduced the appellant to the sponsor. There were no photographs of the wedding or of them together on any other occasions. Even if the sponsor believed the marriage was genuine, there was no evidence that the appellant believed this.

Furthermore, there was a material discrepancy between what the sponsor had said in her witness statement and what she said at the appeal hearing about cohabiting after the wedding. He had noted her explanation in evidence that they had not cohabited after the civil registry office wedding because there was no Islamic wedding. He also took into account that the appellant had overstayed for a period of four years. The judge continued: