Ghanaian tourist wins right to stay in Britain under Brexit rules after courts recognise wedding she did not even attend

Read Time: 5 minutes

By RORY TINGLE, HOME AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT FOR MAILONLINE

A Ghanaian tourist won the right to stay in Britain after organising a wedding for herself that she never attended. 

Francisca Boateng won her immigration appeal on the basis that her ‘proxy’ marriage to a German living in Britain gave her the right to remain in the country. 

The 42-year-old was on holiday in the UK in August 2018 when she met Fatao Sualihu before returning to Ghana to divorce her husband. 

Five months later she organised a proxy marriage with Mr Sualihu in Kumasi, according to legal documents. 

Proxy marriages – where neither of the parties attend the ceremony – are legal in Ghana if at least one parent of one of the parties is in attendance. 

They are not legal in the UK, but British courts will recognise proxy marriages that have taken place in countries where they are valid in certain circumstances. 

Ms Boateng arrived in the UK with her two children but the new marriage broke down just over a year later and divorce proceedings began in January 2022. 

The Ghanaian then claimed UK residency under the post-Brexit EU settlement scheme. 

Francisca Boateng won her immigration appeal on the basis that her ‘proxy’ marriage to a German living in Britain gave her the right to remain in the country. Pictured: The Home Office HQ 

This is because her marriage lasted for three years from the date of the proxy wedding and her husband, as a German national, was eligible for settled status. 

The request was granted despite the fact that the couple did not actually sign their marriage certificate until a civil ceremony three months after the proxy wedding – which would have put them below the three-year requirement. 

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp told the Telegraph, which first reported the story: ‘This whole scenario seems extremely tenuous.

‘The courts are – wrongly – adopting ever wider definitions that allow people without deep connections here and who have not made a meaningful contribution to the UK to stay here permanently.

‘A new common sense approach is needed and we are currently developing that. The plan we announced last week to change the rules to make it a lot tougher to get indefinite leave to remain was just the first step in that process.’

It comes amid widespread outrage at a series of cases where migrants have been given the right to remain in the UK in controversial circumstances. 

This includes the decision to allow a family of Gaza refugees to come into the UK despite applying through a scheme for Ukrainians.

Keir Starmer responded that he agreed the ruling was ‘wrong’ and the Government was looking at changing the law.

The mother, father and four children aged between seven and 18 years old had applied to the Ukraine Family Scheme asking to join their brother already living in the UK – whom they had not seen in person for 17 years.

Earlier this week Kemi Badenoch slammed a decision to allow a family of Gaza refugees to come into the UK despite applying through a scheme for Ukrainians

The case was initially rejected by the Home Office. But immigration judges have now overturned that, on the basis that human rights have been breached.

They concluded that the applicants’ right to a family life was being affected, even though they would not have counted as a ‘unit’ before the latest flare-up of conflict in Gaza.

At PMQs, the Tory leader demanded to know whether the Government was planning to appeal. Ms Badenoch said the UK needed to put ‘our interests’ above the ‘ECHR’.

‘This is not what the scheme was designed to do. This decision is completely wrong,’ she said.

Sir Keir said the Home Office is looking at the ‘legal loophole’. ‘I do not agree with the decision… It should be Parliament that makes the rules,’ he said.

On Tuesday, it emerged that a mother who arrived in the UK on a six-month visa but never left had delayed her deportation after claiming her Caribbean home would be too hot for her new Latvian husband.

Grenadian national Lynthia Calliste jetted into Britain with her son in March 2018 but stayed illegally in the UK after her visitor visa expired.

While in Britain, 35-year-old Calliste married Latvian forklift driver Konstantins Vinakovs, who has a permanent settled status.

Calliste then applied for a marital visa – prompting the Home Office to launch an investigation to try and deport her.

But she is now battling against being booted out of the UK by arguing separating her from her husband would breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human rights – the right to a family life.

When Home Office officials told Calliste her husband could join her in Grenada, the mother-of-one pushed back, saying it would cause too much hassle for her family.

She argued her husband would be ‘would be unable to tolerate the cuisine in Grenada’ and ‘worries… the heat’ of the tropical island would be too much for him, according to reports.. 

Meanwhile, an Albanian criminal is allowed the stay in Britain in part because his son has ‘distaste’ for foreign chicken nuggets.

An immigration tribunal ruled it would be ‘unduly harsh’ for the 10-year-old boy to be forced to move back with his father due to his sensory issues with different types of food.

The judge allowed the father’s appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to a family life as a result.

Albanian Klevis Disha, 39, came to the UK illegally in February 2001 when he was a 15-year-old unaccompanied child.

He entered under a false name and falsely claimed to have been born in the former Yugoslavia. His asylum claim was rejected, but he secured UK citizenship in 2007 after being granted exceptional leave to remain, and then indefinite leave.

In 2017, he was imprisoned for two years after being caught with £250,000 cash.

Then Home Secretary Priti Patel ordered he should be deported to Albania and stripped of his UK citizenship, but Disha appealed and was backed by a judge at an immigration tribunal.

The judge ruled that deportation would be unfair to his son – known only as C – for him to remain in the UK and be separated from his father, or to be forced to go with him to Albania.

was said to have ‘sensory difficulties’ with some clothing, such as socks, and certain types of food which meant he would ‘refuse to do anything’.