The Joint Council for the Welfare of
Immigrants was an intervening party in the MB
(Algeria) case against the so-called "sham"
marriage provisions.

Under rules introduced in 2005, non-EEA nationals
with limited leave to remain have to show they
have a fiancé visa, or have the Home Office's
permission to marry, before being married in a
legally recognised ceremony in the UK. Under the
rules as originally introduced, the Home Office
could refuse people with less than six months'
valid leave to remain the certificate of approval
needed to demonstrate permission to marry to a
registrar. The rules effectively treated those
with less six months' valid leave as seeking to
enter marriages of convenience even where they
were able to demonstrate, if given a chance, that
they had no such intention.

In a judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down
today Lord Justice Buxton, sitting with Lord
Justices Lloyd and Waller, ruled that the scheme
was disproportionate to the objective of
preventing marriages of convenience for
immigration benefit because it
discriminated against non-Anglicans by
exempting marriages under banns in Anglican
churches, and was not adequately directed to identifying
real marriages of convenience rather than
preventing wide categories of persons from
marrying on the assumption that these were
marriages of convenience

In the judgment of the Court Lord Justice Buxton
said: "The objection inherent in the scheme that
it inhibits marriage on grounds of immigration
status rather than by a reliable consideration of
the genuineness of the marriage applies just as
much in the case of an illegal entrant as in the
case of persons with very limited permission to
be here."

The ruling states that the Home Office is within
its rights to prevent marriages of convenience
for immigration benefit but it will need to
legislate in a proportionate matter to do so.

Habib Rahman, Chief Executive of JCWI ,said:
"This judgment today is a vindication of the
genuine intentions of many migrants and their
partners who have been prevented from marrying in
a legally recognised ceremony by these cruel
rules. The Lord Justices have reminded the Home
Secretary that all people in the UK are human
beings with rights whatever their immigration
status. Given that this decision extends rather
than overturns the High Court decision we urge
the Home Office to abide by this decision and not
proceed to appeal."

In the High Court hearing last year JCWI argued that
the rules introduced as a result of Section
19 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of
Claimants) Act 2004 breach people's right to marryand have a discriminatory effect under the
European Convention on Human Rights given the
exception made under the rules for people
marrying in the Church of England and that immigration status is not in itself
any indication of intention to marry for
immigration benefit

Mr Justice Silber in the High Court decision
ruled that the Home Office controls were not
sufficiently focussed on identifying and
preventing sham marriages as opposed to genuine
marriages. He agreed with concerns expressed by
JCWI and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights - including the concern that the
rules could have a potentially discriminatory
effect on certain religious groups, given the
exception made for Anglicans. However he limited
his ruling to non-EEA nationals with leave to
remain in the UK.



Notes to readers

** The Joint Council for the Welfare of
Immigrants is an independent, voluntary
organisation working in the field of immigration,
asylum and nationality law and policy.
Established in 1967, JCWI actively lobbies and
campaigns for changes in law and practice and its
mission is to eliminate discrimination in this
sphere.

*** For more information about the MB
Algeria case and the "sham" marriage rules, or
JCWI, visit