Heartless Home Office strikes again!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/24/adam-wallis-rochelle-roberts

I understand the law was designed to protect young, Asian British women against the appalling practice of forced marriage, BUT they exactly can't make a law and then say, 'It only applies to Asian people'.

Rules are rules.

He could either have elected to get a visa to live in Canada with her on the basis of their marriage or they both could have waited to get married.

Meh.

But they only got caught by the new law because the Home Office lost their passport photos or they would have been married before the change. 

if she had gone back home and gotten a fiance visa (instead of applying for a COA and then trying the daft strategy of applying in-country for FLR(M), which is not even allowed since she was here as a visitor), they would have been fine and would have been able to get married and get her a spousal visa prior to the rule change.

I like how they say she had "technically" overstayed her visa once their wedding rolled around- it was her choice to stay past her allotted time.  If that had happened to me, you can bet I would have hightailed it back to Canada ASAP with fiance in tow before the visa expired and then married there and gotten a spousal visa.

Eh, I can't get too worked up about this. They should have done their research properly.

(I'm not in favour of the 21 age limit in general though, it stinks! But for this particular couple, their current situation is really their own fault.)

Edit (again!): The above assumes the "last March" in the article refers to March 2008 (since if she got here March 2009 chances are her visitor's visa wouldn't have yet expired!) If I'm wrong and she arrived as a visitor *after* the age changes came in, then I have a bit more sympathy, but they still should have done their research to find out the minimum age limits for visas before getting married.

But they only got caught by the new law because the Home Office lost their passport photos or they would have been married before the change. 

It happens.

It's done now. 

I've know several people who had to be separated because their spousal visa application failed.

They had to separate and re-apply.

It sucks but hey, they've already done the LDR thing

he couple met in Canada more than two years ago and remained in close contact before she decided to visit him at his home in Aberystwyth, Wales, last March.

I think the UN has/is going to try to pressure the UK to change this and other laws regarding family reunification/spouse visas. 

I'm not deeply moved either.  They didn't follow the rules, and these are the consequences.  The 21-year requirement stinks, but she's overstayed her visa and exceptions shouldn't be made.  Either people can switch from visitor to spouse or they can't.  Personally, I think they should be able to, but the rules say they can't.  'Nuff said. 

I'm not deeply moved either.  They didn't follow the rules, and these are the consequences.  The 21-year requirement stinks, but she's overstayed her visa and exceptions shouldn't be made.  

Agreed.

Wait: which rules did they not follow? They couldn't get married before her visa expired because of the delay caused by the Home Office.  They had one week. You have to give two weeks notice at the registry office before you can even book a wedding date!

I meant trying to switch from a visitor to a spouse in the UK. 

But they'd obtained permission from the HO to do that.

Where does it say that?  Never mind, I found it.  I still don't get what makes them special, though.  In-country switches from visitor to spouse aren't allowed for anyone, why should this couple be an exception?  

Does it really matter why they were granted an exception??  The point is, they'd followed the rules as applied to them and were penalized big time anyway!

Hold on a second, I've just re-read the article, and I think it's saying that they applied for permission to marry, eg a Certificate of Approval, and that that application was delayed.  So they never had permission to switch from visitor to spouse, even if the CoA had been granted in time, she would still have had to return to Canada to apply for a spouse visa, so she's caught by the under-21 rule no matter what.  At least, that's how I interpret this:

They decided to marry and applied for permission from the Home Office a month before her visa ran out.

Permission to marry not permission to apply for FLR(M) whilst on a visitor visa.