Originally Posted by
BriaNoreen
My fiancee Noreen [this is Brian here] just alerted me about this case and it makes for very disturbing reading.
What is disturbing is not the refusal per se - that is indeed unpleasant - but the main concern is the sheer inconsistency, poor application of law, lack of transparency and outright vicious arbitrariness of this case. Was it a North Korean Commissar who made the decision? Or a British Citizen or worker performing his duties diligenty and applying the law without prejudice?
The evidence clearly has not been considered - and the ECO therefore has lied about the evidence, and his decision is subsequently a lie and a breach of your rights [as well as slander against both of you - for you are being accused of lying despite honest and clear evidence!].
A few key points for your case:
It is completely irrelevant whether the ECO got out of the wrong side of the bed. He has his duties to perform under work and social contract. Duty precedes whim otherwise there is no fair justice. Imagine a doctor killed a patient because he was in a bad mood? Or a soldier shot a civilian? Or a judge sentenced you to 30 years for drug dealing despite clear evidence on the contrary - simply because he didn't feel good that day.
There is clearly no cross checking to ensure consistency. A student does an exam and his work is scrutinised by TWO tutors, not one - to ensure a fair and balanced result, and all these are then statistically compared to each other, to ensure consistency [on a qualitative basis - and the qualitative and 'intuitive' is sometimes used in cases such as visa applications to discern the viability of evidence].
This has not happened here. We have an ECO who has made no evidence based decision whatsoever. If the ECO is trying to argue "I smelled a rat", a qualitative and intuitive concern about your application - due to a recent divorce - the argument is simple. The ECO's moral concerns about divorce and marriage are irrelevant. A legal concern is all that matters - it is of no consequence if he does not like your life story. All that is relevant - is the clear and honest evidence. You are entitled to marry after divorce, end of story. Is your marriage then being regarded as null and void??? What is the premise of the ECO's argument here beyond whim and resentment?
Finally - if you or I failed to be consistent and honest when making our tax returns, applying for a passport, welfare, medical assistance, giving evidence to the police, considering evidence rationally on a jury without prejudice - we have committed a criminal offense. In your case, the ECO, and the UKBA, have committed a criminal offense by failing to consider evidence in a fair manner, not being transparent, and effectively lying about your case [and slandering you is in effect, them telling lies as the evidence speaks clearly and they are lying about that]. This is very possibly a human rights case besides a case of maladministration. Your rights and dignity - and the rights and dignity of your wife - have been denigrated and curtailed on the basis of very unreasonable and arbitrary decisions.
The fee - you should be recompensed for that - and any other costs incurred from this case - as it is their malfeasance that has led to this miscarriage of justice.
Good luck and be strong!
Brian McNulty
