Relationships Talk

ENID, Okla. — Oklahoma Bar Association is offering free legal advice to eligible service members and veterans.

The program called Oklahoma Lawyers for America’s Heroes began seven years ago and has helped more than 200 people this year.

“The bar association has 657 volunteer attorneys from across the state to answer legal questions and give advice,” said OBA President Kimberly Hays. “Since the program was launched on Veterans Day in 2010, Oklahoma lawyers have helped 4,770 people with free legal advice totaling $3,321,000 in billable time donated.”

To qualify for the free services, a hero must be a veteran of the U.S. armed forces, currently active or on reserve duty; if on active duty or a member of the guard or reserves, the hero’s pay grade must be E-6 or below; if a veteran, the hero’s gross income per year cannot exceed $40,000 with all income considered; if a veteran, the hero must have an honorable discharge; and have a legal issue within Oklahoma and cannot be currently represented by counsel.

To request assistance, go to www.okbarheroes.org and follow the instructions to submit information online or by mail. For questions, call program coordinator Margaret Travis at (405) 416-7086.

Nearly half the cases this year have involved family law, such as dissolution of marriage, adoption and paternity. About 14 percent of legal services given were criminal issues, followed by 8 percent of debt-issue cases. General civil cases and disability each represent about 5 percent of cases. Other legal needs were real estate, tort/personal injury, estate planning, landlord/tenant, probate, military, employment, contracts/breach, administrative/immigration, discrimination and taxes.

“I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for this,” said one hero who used the program. “You have no idea how hard and scary this has been. I don’t know if or how I can thank you enough.”

Volunteer attorney Courtney Zamudio, of Oklahoma City, said, “Our service members sacrifice so much for so little. They should be able to focus their efforts on the mission and their job in our armed services and not the financial and legal burdens they may be facing. Serving as a volunteer helps to relieve these burdens while giving our heroes comfort that someone cares and is providing them services they may not otherwise be able to afford.” 

A woman claims her Canadian husband faces deportation after spending two years trying to prove their marriage isn’t a sham to immigration officials.

Julie and Jeff Rose have been happily married since 2014 but are now having to prove the legitimacy of their union to the Home Office.

The couple, from Milnrow, Rochdale, says their life is on hold until the administration debacle is resolved.

They claim to have been given conflicting advice from Home Office officials, resulting in Jeff being placed on immigration bail and being unable to work.

Yet the Home Office say the onus is on the applicant to provide all the necessary documents for their case to be processed.

Julie, 55, said: “This is a person who entered the country legally. It’s absolutely disgusting.

“The problem is they are putting everyone in the same category.

Julie and Jeff Rose say they have done everything to prove to immigration officials their marriage isn’t a sham.

“It’s devastating because he can’t work either at the minute. He bought a brand new car recently and we’re going to have to sell that.

“It has caused so much upset and stress.”

Julie and Jeff fell in love in Canada in 2007 before moving to the UK in 2011.

A couple of years later they decided to get married and in 2014 wed in a civil ceremony at Rochdale Town Halll.

Jeff, 55, has UK ancestors (his paternal grandfather was born in Derbyshire), enabling him to enter the country on an ancestry visa.

Jeff’s visa was due to expire in July 2016, so the couple made enquiries about which course to take as he was married to a UK national.

The couple claim to have received conflicting advice from the Home Office about what to do.

On a second call to an advisor they were told to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain under the ‘Spousal Route’ once the ancestry visa had expired a year later.

By this point the couple had got jobs working in education and had bought a house.

Jeff was told he’d have to sit a ‘Life in the UK’ test.

Julie explains: “The first available appointment was August 11, 2016. His ancestry visa expired on July that year 2016.

“At no point were we told we should continue under the ancestry route, or that we could in fact apply to extend his ancestry visa for a further five years; something we have since established was an option.

“No one advised us of this at that time.”

They completed the application under the spousal route, expecting it to be processed within six months.

Yet despite numerous follow-up calls, they didn’t hear from the Home Office for another year.

It wasn’t until June 14 this year, after 20 months of waiting, Jeff was told his application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK was rejected.

Their caseworker said they did not believe their marriage to be ‘genuine, real or subsisting’.

The couple were devastated.

“I can’t tell you how stressful the whole process is,” says Julie.

“The correspondence was shocking and devastating for our family.”

The couple have sent photographs to the Home Office to prove their marriage is real

Jeff added: “It’s difficult to comprehend or describe what it feels like to be faced with the possibility of having to leave your wife and family, and a country in which you are settled, and the utter upset and devastation this has caused our family.

“We had built a life here, I had been working and paying taxes for seven years and felt a strong attachment to the place of my grandfathers heritage.”

Jeff was dealt another blow when he lost his job as a key worker for young adults due to the Home Office’s decision.

The couple have appealed the decision, sending photographs, pay slips and other documents to prove their marriage.

But for now Jeff remains on immigration bail.

He is now faced with having to report to a deportation centre in Salford Quays once a month until his application is processed.

Jeff says there is no fair reason for placing him on immigration bail.

“Why would I choose to abscond?” he said.

Julie, a teaching assistant, added: “While I appreciate the need to protect the borders, but this is ridiculous.

“Now I’m in a situation where my husband could be deported.”

The couple believe they have fallen victim to a number of clerical errors on the Home Office’s part.

“We did everything and followed the advice of the adviser but now we are having to prove that our marriage is real,” added Julie.

The Home Office said it had contacted Mr Rose to inform him that we are reviewing his application for Indefinite Leave to Remain.

A spokesman said all UKVI helpline staff provide advice on the application process, and do not provide immigration advice, including which visa route is appropriate.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “All UK visa applications are considered on their individual merits and in line with UK immigration rules and guidance.”

Got a story or an issue you want us to investigate? Want to tell us about something going on where you live? Let us know – in complete confidence – by emailing newsdesk@men-news.co.uk, calling us on 0161 211 2323, tweeting us @MENnewsdesk or messaging us on our Facebook page. You can also send us a story tip using the form here. Join the Manchester Evening News breaking news Facebook group for a place to read and talk about breaking news in Greater Manchester.

An agony aunt has dished out some unexpected advice to a wife at a loss at what to do about her husband’s laziness with chores – and just about everyone disagrees with her.

The woman, who wrote into the Washington Post’s columnist Carolyn Hax, explained that she does much more housework than her husband, estimating it to be a 70-30 split.

“When I complain, he says he doesn’t mind grimy bathtubs or piled-up paper, and since I do mind, then I should do the cleaning,” she said.

“He says it’s unfair for me to unilaterally set house standards and then force him to live up to them.”

This, of course, frustrated the woman, who was only asking for “a weekly vacuum, bathroom cleaning and laundry”.

But rather than just suggest ways the woman might convince her husband to pull his weight, Ms Hax advised the couple to invest in a cleaner.

“Hire a cleaning service for the weekly vacuum and bathroom cleaning, and split the remaining jobs 50-50, or as close to it as you can get.”

“Do this even if you have to cut other expenses to afford it.”

This solution was teamed with the advice to make sure if he didn’t do his remaining chores that they affected him directly – but it was the first suggestion that had fellow readers flabbergasted.

“Hire a cleaning service? Sure! That’ll teach him!” one reader sarcastically remarked.

“My experience: a man who is too lazy to help with the chores is also too lazy to help with paying someone else to do them, too. Just one more thing I would have to pay for while he gets off scot-free.”

Another commenter agreed that the husband probably wouldn’t be willing to sacrifice anything of his own to pay for the cleaning service, leading to more arguments.