Akinwale

Got an immigration refusal from the home office today....refusal ground is that l stated that I was married in a visit visa application in 2006 that did not mentioned it when l married my EEA wife at the registry. The truth is that l was actually married when l made the application in 2006 but the marriage was annulled when l found out that the woman l married was legally still married to another man when I married and also because the child she had that i taught was mine wasn't mine afterall. I was told then by the judge that the marriage was cancel and that it never existed. What will l do now to support my appeal at the tribunal........

old.sparkles

I've moved your post to this section as you had posted in the Australian immigration section.

Sorry, I can't help with your question - hopefully someone who can will be along soon

pennylessinindia

I think is is probably too complex a situation for an expatriate website you may wish to look at a specific immigration forum and given the complexity of the situation I would suggest you seek the advice of an immigration specialist as soon as possible

Akinwale

l have seen the decree of nullity l collected in 2007 after the marriage was decleared void by the judge, l also called the registry and told to bring the document that necessary correction will be made to our marriage certificate. can l also take the decree of nullity to the tribunal as evidence that my previous marriage was annuled? can l also reapply to the home office or ask for recondideration? thank you everyone

englishguygoinghome

If it's an EEA permit - you lose nothing by reapplying rather than appealing and it's probably quicker. Both of those statements are assumptions so check them out.
I don't see why you shouldn't provide the decree to the tribunal - be careful to explain why it isn't new evidence ("I correctly filled in the form as my previous marriage was considered to have never existed as per the attached decree. This information was not requested by the UKBA, the details given on the orginal form were correct and is included here simply to provide proof of that.")
Good luck