- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
Yes, they can, with the same rights of the EEA national.naija99 wrote:Can your non-EEA family members join you during the initial 3 month period?
Sorry this is not correct, the initial right of residence applies upon each admission/entry to the UK regardless. The only limitation placed upon this was the recent 1.1.14 amendments to the EEA regulations designed to deal with abuse of the initial right to reside, this only gives the power SSHD to investigate and subsequently make a decision as to whether a right to reside should be withdrawn in cases were repeated re-entry is deemed to be an abuse designed to circumvent the requirement to be a qualified person. The explantory memorandum issued in respect of the 1.1.14 amendment is actually helpful as it highlights the 'resetting' upon each entry.sheraz7 wrote:Initial 3 months of right of residence applies once unless the continuous residence breaks such as by being absent for more than 6 months or 12 months (in circumstances such as studying & pregnancy etc). When the continuous residence breaks then the initial right of residence (3 months) will restart again.
The sponsor in this case was resident in the UK without being a qualified person and was only accompanying her spouse from India, she was not a resident of India -Universal soldier wrote:I fully agreed with GURU answer and not satisfied from el patron answer. If initial right of residence of 3 months keeps triggering upon each admission/entry then its a powerful loopholes and people with small treaty rights evidences become permanent resident just by booking travel tickets during 5 years.
This give really full sense as GURU said that it applies once for an unbroken residence period.
I think you have answered your own question.Universal soldier wrote:Don't mind these case studies. Ask a question to yourself that when the regulations defines that even a person travel outside uk and live outside uk for 6 or 12 months then he is still having residence in uk then how can be possible that initial right of residence applies again again for a person who is already having residence. Yes if his absence exceeds then he will break residence then it will once again applies. The thing you understanding or thinking wrong.
Assertions are simply that. However it seems no-one else has quoted case-law, regulations or even Home Office internal guidance which state to the contrary of what I have expounded. The directive is unequivocal about the initial three month period, that is why the Home Office have a problem with it, hence the attempt to restrict it.Universal soldier wrote:How can i answer my own question when i am not asking rather repeating same what GURU had already replied
I believe now you got answer with the quote the same is already be mentioned at above.
It would be useful if case-law or internal guidance were there to evidence the same, rather the opposite being the case, unless someone has had sight of such that is unknown to me, I have more than just a personal interest in such things!dalebutt wrote:Sheraz's opinion is inline with the UK's interpretation, what I cannot say is it it conforms with Community law, one the face of it it will appear so, any other interpretation in my view will be open to abuse. This is my opinion.
On your reasoning I find it quite astounding that the President of the Upper Tribunal didn't find it as crystal clear as you suggest when this precise scenario was before him, perhaps your knowledge is of more relevance, but that won't be what I'll be presenting on behalf of appellants, that isn't what they pay me to do.Universal soldier wrote:Concept is crystal clear now, although there are few aspects which still unclear in directive but certainly not that one because while keeping in mind the concept of continuous residence it become clear. And we never listen too long millions of post here that someone get initial right on each entry.
el patron wrote:It would be useful if case-law or internal guidance were there to evidence the same, rather the opposite being the case, unless someone has had sight of such that is unknown to me, I have more than just a personal interest in such things!dalebutt wrote:Sheraz's opinion is inline with the UK's interpretation, what I cannot say is it it conforms with Community law, one the face of it it will appear so, any other interpretation in my view will be open to abuse. This is my opinion.
that is interesting dalebutt thank you. However that reflects the position of the appellant in the case I referred to in the upper tribunal were that EEA national sponsor had resided all her life in the UK also and remained habitually resident, she nevertheless gained the benefit of the initial right to reside upon admission to the UK, as did her husband, thus her husband's appeal was allowed.dalebutt wrote:el patron wrote:It would be useful if case-law or internal guidance were there to evidence the same, rather the opposite being the case, unless someone has had sight of such that is unknown to me, I have more than just a personal interest in such things!dalebutt wrote:Sheraz's opinion is inline with the UK's interpretation, what I cannot say is it it conforms with Community law, one the face of it it will appear so, any other interpretation in my view will be open to abuse. This is my opinion.
Louis is a Belgian national. On 9.1.14 he came to the UK to look for work. Having been unable to find a job, he claimed JSA (IB). The date of claim was 14.4.14. It emerged from questions asked in relation to the claim that, since arriving, Louis had lived in a rented flat in the UK and that he had spent the period 2.3.14 to 15.3.14 in Belgium. His father had died and he had attended the funeral and had stayed in his mother’s house. The DM decided that, as at 14.4.14, Louis had lived in the UK continuously for 3 months. The 2 week absence did not mean that Louis had ceased to live in the UK.
Example 2
Mia is a German national. She came to the UK alone on 2.1.14 in order to look for work. She rented a bedsit on a short-term one month tenancy and stayed in the UK until 1.2.14 when she returned to Germany. In Germany she stayed with her husband and children in the family home until 30.3.14. She did no work in Germany during that time. When she came back (again alone) to the UK on 30.3.14, she took up a 6 month
11
tenancy on a flat. On 7.4.14 Mia claimed JSA(IB). On 8.4.14, the DM decided that Mia had a right to reside as a jobseeker but that she was not to be treated as habitually resident in the UK because she had not lived here for the three months prior to her claim. The DM therefore decided that Mia was not entitled to JSA(IB).
This is an extract from the DWP assessment of EU nationals residing the UK for benefit purpose. I copied this from the link posted by Obie few days ago.
If I have read the case properly, it is a little at variance in my opinion to the present scenario, the findings of the appelants representation is very telling, it is very easy to ignore the findings if one wasn't reminded of them.el patron wrote:
Fully agreedUKBA HUNTER wrote:The more mouths the more assumptions with confusions. I think that query may vary in the context of claiming benefits and EEA route application but we are talking here in the context of EEA route application. And i believe that the guru and soldier is answering this question in the light of EEA route application where continuous residence backed by treaty rights are highly imperative for claiming PR and their interpretation are logical and correct. This concept is associated with continuous residence and yes if EU national is visiting UK just for few days just a small trip without the intention of residing there and then later in future again enters with the intention of residing here then that initial right of residence (3 months) will start again. But for an application for PR based on 5 years of continuous stay backed by treaty rights then it will apply once.
Moreover, there are a number of case studies/judgments which based on individual circumstances which we cannot drag into every resembling case.