Overturn Error in Immigration Process stopping UK entry for non-EU wife of a British National.

Amina is a Tunisian national who is 35 weeks pregnant. I cannot visit Tunisia for the birth of our first child because of the FCO's restriction following the attack there this summer. There is one more week before she cannot fly from Tunis to the UK.

The Home Office Helpline said the "Surinder Singh route" was appropriate for us - this is where a UK National has transferred his life to another EU country and while there has created and strengthened family ties with a non-EU National. In these circumstances EU rules apply (as set by the Surinder Singh case and subsequent rulings). The non-EU spouse then has the right to enter the UK with their husband/wife, as is the case in any other EU Country.

This case was refused because the Entry Clearance Officer thought that couples also had to live in the EU after their marriage. (We went to Hong Kong for 12 months post-doctoral research work in a University, then came back to the UK.) In fact subsequent clarifications from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) show that the family relationship must be created and strengthened within the EU - we were both resident in France at the time of our marriage. There is no requirement to live in the EU for any further period of time.

This mistake in implementing the law can be overturned from within the Home Office. At the moment we are denied our right to a family life together and in particular will be apart for what should be the best day of our lives - when our child is born.

Aside from personal issues, it is ridiculously difficult for a British national to bring their spouse to the UK. In our case, the overwhelming response of friends and family is "surely she can be with him as his wife".... The British public are unaware of the issues facing genuine legal immigrants and need to be told how the UK's isolated stance on Borders and Immigration is creating misery for individual families in so many ways.

It must also be noted that two UK members of parliament have been in touch with the Home Office on our behalf due to the tight time-scale involved. Their best efforts to help us have been met with bureaucratic brick walls, un-informed ‘contact centres’ and a complete absence of communication links with anybody in a position to accelerate our urgent case. My attempts to contact UKV&I were similarly un-fruitful, although quite lucrative for the visa service who charged me in excess of £10 on a telephone call to simply tell me that Amina’s case had not yet been assessed. The UKV&I email enquiry service on the gov.uk website seemingly generates automatic responses based on key words in the original question asked by the user, with replies ranging from unhelpful to absurd.

Two important and quite general questions are raised as a result of this experience; firstly, how can the UK government get away with not applying EU immigration law, requiring many cases that fall outside the letter of previous rulings to go through ECJ appeals? The UK is part of the EU and the laws of the wider union come before national law. The UK’s ‘pick and choose’ attitude towards EU policies is evident here, with the government being very keen to remain part of the economic treaties, whilst shirking its responsibilities on other matters, particularly immigration. The government’s refusal to participate in the proposed quota system to distribute migrants in the current crisis, as well as Theresa May’s recent announcement that the EU’s ‘Freedom of Movement’ policy is actually a truncated version of ‘Freedom of Movement to a job’ are other clear demonstrations of this irresponsible attitude.

Secondly, how can the government justify branding people as ‘illegal immigrants’, when even those seeking to follow the law and obtain visas through proper channels are refused leave to enter the country? The current visa system is incomprehensible and completely un-yielding, refusing to adapt to an individual’s circumstances or provide information to those elected to represent the public: our MPs. The Home Office and those working in it are supposed to be providing a public service, and even acknowledge this through referring to users of the visa system as ‘customers’. Immigrants are already ineligible for state benefits, and must pay the Immigration Health Surcharge regardless of whether or not they use NHS services, so arguing that preventing, for example, spouses of British citizens from coming to the UK will reduce the burden on the state is untrue. Furthermore, the inflexible nature of immigration policy means that the UK is often losing qualified professionals to other countries, as is the case here. Both my wife and I are doctors of physics, and are being driven out of the UK despite our qualifications.

We are not alone in this situation, the Surinder Singh route is not a 'loophole' that the government should seek to close - it is one of the last defences protecting EU law from the UK's cruel immigration rules.