Have a Good NEWS

Minister says youth at risk of forced marriage, after the Supreme Court struck down the blanket prohibition directed to the under-21

criticized a decision by the Supreme Court, which threw a blanket ban on visas for marriage under 21.

Immigration Minister, Damian Green, said Wednesday the decision was "another disappointing decision" that put youth at risk of being forced to marry.

judges of the Supreme Court ruled that a citizen seat cover UK visa ban of 21 years with the spouse in the UK from abroad was illegal, saying she had done more good and evil that had prevented a real 5000 pairs per year, from 18 to 21 years, living together in Britain.

The judges said the ban, which was introduced to prevent forced marriages, violated the right to family life of couples affected - a right granted by the controversial Article eight of the European Convention on human rights, which is the center of the cabinet row last week on the Human Rights Act.

The ruling said that the only conclusion I could draw was that the visa ban marriage in good faith had been kept out or forced to young couples to live outside the United Kingdom . He added that the "substantial number" of young couples affected "far exceeds" the number of marriages that could have been avoided.

"In any case, the move was a blow, but the Secretary of State did not attempt to identify the size of the nut," said the judges of the highest in England .

However, Green said the ruling overturned an existing policy that was considered consistent with the Convention of human rights in other European countries. "Even the judges agreed to raise the age for marriage visas is a legitimate objective. We believe that this decision will put vulnerable people at risk of being forced to marry," he said.

The decision, by a majority of 4-1, is a blow to the Home Secretary, Theresa May, and the rejection of his appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal before the standard U-21 was "arbitrary and harmful."

The court's decision is likely to revive the line of human rights last week after the "cat flap" shock, during which he undertook to write the immigration rules to ensure that the controversial article eight "is not misinterpreted by the judges." It also follows David Cameron's promise on Monday to end forced marriages.

One of the five judges of the Supreme Court, Lord Brown said he supported the call of the Secretary-house. He warned his colleagues that it was "irresponsible" use of the courts of the eighth article that "once again thwart the government's policy."

previous Labor government introduced a visa ban, but the coalition has been implemented as a measure to tackle forced marriage. The Supreme Court says there is no evidence that was to prevent or to prevent forced marriages.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), which was part of the challenge, said about 5,000 couples a year who wanted to marry suffered under the ban, which applies to spouses and partners outside the EU to join those who have the right to live in Britain.

The challenge was filed on behalf of two couples. The first, a British woman, Jeffrey Amber, and her husband Chilean Diego Aguilar-Quila, met at school, while the mother-Aguilar Quila was studied in a British university.

Although the Interior Ministry has accepted the relationship was genuine, Aguilar-Quila was denied a visa to stay in Britain under the government and Jeffrey had to yield to the Royal Holloway College London for talks with her husband in Chile. Later, the couple moved to Ireland.

The second pair, Shakira Bibi, Pakistan and Suhail Mohammed, a British citizen, was married October 30, 2008. The Home Office has accepted that traditional marriage was arranged that the two have agreed freely. However, when asked in December 2008, his visa application was rejected marriage because the two were under 21 years.