Court of Appeal to decide whether or not laws are discriminatory
Thousands of overseas spouses could be helped by a legal challenge to the immigration age threshold of 21.
In Bibi & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department, due to be heard in July, the Court of Appeal will rule on whether the bar on entry for overseas spouses below the age of 21 is unlawful and discriminatory.
Paragraph 277 of the Immigration Rules was amended in November 2008 to raise the age of entry from 18 to 21 for “either applicant or sponsor” where a person seeks to join their spouse in the UK. The change was intended to help the Home Office prevent forced marriages.
Bibi, however, which is due to be heard alongside the appeal of Quila and Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 3189 (Admin), will question whether that amendment is racially discriminatory and disproportionately affects the family life of ethnic minorities.
Ms Bibi’s barrister, Al Mustakim, of 3 Fleet Street chambers, will argue that Arts 8, 12 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights are engaged, and that the rule unfairly affects the family life and right to marry of ethnic minorities and impinges on their traditional values, identity, security and lifestyle.
Non-practising barrister Islam Khan, who is assisting in the case, says: “We are arguing that the equality impact assessment, which found the policy does nothing to deter forced marriages, wasn’t comprehensively scrutinised.
“This rule change affects about 5,000 people worldwide who make applications to join their spouses in the UK each year. The statistics show that individuals from ethnic minorities are more likely to marry at a younger age than the white British majority, and are therefore more reliant on marriage visas to enjoy their family life. Paragraph 277 therefore has a disproportionate effect and is indirectly discriminatory.”
