greatscott wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 5:56 pm
Well, I'm getting no help from guru's on this forum and I suspect I know why....because you all know that the changes made by the UK in Dec 2016 (LOL a couple of weeks before our 5 years was complete, ain't that a laugh),
are in fact legal.
Well, they're not in accord with the currently established law, based on Eind, which is still listed in the Home Office guide on relevant case law! (On the other hand, the Home Office does appear to be attempting remove the concept of law from case-working decisions.) The kindest interpretation I have is that the HO has decided that the decision in Eind was wrong. The only way to reverse it is to have another case be referred to the EUCJ so that the court can reverse itself, as happened with Akrich and then Metock.
Unfortunately, your case appears to be a test case. If you appeal, and the judges are favourable, I expect your case to go all the way up to the EUCJ - if you can afford the lawyers. Judges supporting you can be portrayed as defying the will of Parliament, and judges seems reluctant to do that. Be prepared to encounter Treasury counsel at the Court of Appeal. Unfortunately, your family need permanent residence cards within 18 months so that they can apply for naturalisation. Otherwise, they are dependent on Surinder Singh rights surviving Brexit, and this looks increasingly unlikely. It seems that there aren't enough EU nationals dependent on Surinder Singh rights in the UK - and various other EU governments would also like Surinder Singh to be overturned.
It's just possible that your family can keep the naturalisation door open by applying for British passports, on the basis that the application for passports can be construed as an application for naturalisation, and the lack of PRCs overlooked on the grounds that you should already have received them, but didn't.
It had occurred to me that if you were a foreign national, you might have acquired PR. If you had, would you have kept it, or would you have lost it by 2 years absence? Unfortunately, the case working guidance insists on British sponsors being 'qualified persons'. I can't find any justification for excluding permanent residence - acquire PR in country A, one year's residence in country B and then return to country A retaining PR there is a perfectly possible trajectory. Indeed, it might be possible, though peculiar, to have PR in two countries simultaneously. (When would PR-preserving visits have been declared an abuse?)