Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form

[snooky]

.........

For years, the UK denied Zambrano carers derivative residence cards - in clear and total violation of EU law. From this Friday, there is no EU law in place for Zambrano carers to guide the UK's actions.

That is not correct. EU law will apply in its entirety in the UK, until at least 31-12-2020.

Zambrano carer will continue to benefit from the withdrawal agreement thereafter.

No, Obie. You are incorrect. EU law will not apply in its entirety. Zambrano carers are not covered by the Withdrawal Agreement or the Political Declaration. The EU did not negotiate on behalf of Zambrano carers. The EU did not ask that Zambrano carers continue to enjoy the same rights post Brexit as they currently enjoy today.

If you are so certain, provide evidence. It is really is that simple.

Zambrano_ombudsman

My advice to you is to stay with your brilliant ombudsman write ups and leave Zambrano protection to those who really understand how law works

I snooky have given you evidence already

Please stop this. It's not healthy. You understanding technical words in context of law.

What Home Office is doing is consistent to the draft withdrawal Agreement with EU.

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

Zambrano_ombudsman

Your evidence are all stale. Not in accordance with any material fact which has been agreed amongest the EU 27

You talk about Home Office making things hard for Zambrano carers. It is a fact but this happened because after the Zambrano ruling, Lady Hale properly explain under ZH Tanzanian and other children Supreme Court ruling about Articles 7 and 8 and best interest of a child. Home Office then adpoted this ruling and made ex1 application under Appendix FM of the domestic immigration.

So Home Office thought once it has incorprated this ruling they can then forget Zambrano EU ruling.

But the ruling of chen and carpenters, mccartey vs SSHD reenforced Zambrano ruling and the Home of on 2013 followed and juridiction of the EU Court.

Technically Appendix FM and Zambrano are similar

Snooky,

You are just saying words. I cite the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration. These documents were approved by Parliament this month. Live contracts can not be stale, by definition. What you have said, "Your evidence are all stale," makes absolutely no sense.

There is no reason for the Home Office to not provide Zambrano carers with a decision (or at least an update) within six months.

The Home Office should have continued to issue derivative residence cards to Zambrano carers as long as the UK remained in the EU, regardless of Lady Hale's ruling.

The UK had to follow EU rules. No ruling by the UK, by Lady Hale, could change that simple fact.

At this point, you appear to just be making excuses for the Home Office. I wonder why?

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

Zambrano_ombudsman

My advice to you is to stay with your brilliant ombudsman write ups and leave Zambrano protection to those who really understand how law works

I snooky have given you evidence already

Please stop this. It's not healthy. You understanding technical words in context of law.

What Home Office is doing is consistent to the draft withdrawal Agreement with EU.

Snooky,

My advice to you is to speak to your own individual experience and not pretend that your success will automatically mean success for all of the other Zambrano carers who have pending applications.

You think I don't understand the law because I disagree with you.

Your "evidence" is a Home Office document. As I mentioned previously, the documents that matter are the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration. Moreover, Zambrano carers are not protected in those agreements.

Please stop trying to shut down debate because I am challenging you to provide evidence.

The draft Withdrawal Agreement is no longer valid. The Withdrawal Agreement was approved by Parliament. We are concerned with the final document.

I do not know what your sentence, "You understanding technical words in context of law." means.

[Obie]

persons other than those defined in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC whose
presence is required by Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals in order not to
deprive those Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals of a right of residence
granted by this Part;

@Zambrano_ombudsman

This provision in my view, is designed to cover Zambrano, Chen, Baumbast cases and so on. Therefore to say the withdrawal agreement does not cover Zambrano is simply wrong.

That provision is designed to cover People who are not covered by Article 2(2) of the directive, but who nevertheless have right of Residence under EU law.

Accusing soeone of being wrong or incorrect, is not something I do lightly. I examine the opinion a person expresses before carefully reachinng that conclusion, and I derive no joy in telling someone they are wrong. I do so for constructive and not destructive reasons.

I accept you may hold any opinion you wish, but i do have responsibility to ensure that members who access this thread are not misled in any way shape or form. Therefore if i note you are posting something that cannot be reasonably possibly correct, then i will have to point that out.

If other members chooses to take your views, that is their perogative, but i need to inform them.

EU law will continue to apply in the UK, save for the fact that the UK will no longer be part of the EU political structure during the transition period. Therefore free movement law as it presently is, will continue for the next 11 months.

[Chris90]

Wanna make it clear, my opinion means nothing. Not trying to scare or be negative. All I am highlighting is that home office already have a shady reputation and I don't believe they will change soon.

To be honest settled status on its on its own is not the most secure position a non EU citizen can hold. They already made room to control the terms and conditions of settled status but I want it still because I am eligible and the made it my only option to remain legally(in eu law).

Remember people eu citizens don't necessarily want settled status as they held something more secure.
As non EU, we should expect home office to try pull a smart one which they did until Lady Hale Supreme Court ruled in our favour as she was sticking to what the law says.

Once again it is in your interest to put pressure on home office and make noise if necessary publicly if its be more than 1 month waiting.

Notice how they are slow to adapt to the Patel ruling however the courts aren't. Goes to show home office often do the right thing publicly, Can not say the same when they are not being made accountable.

When you often have to go to court to get justice you know what time it is.

Best wishes.

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

Dear Obie,

Even the EU admits that not all EU law will apply after 31 January 2020.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... nda_20_104

Thank you for citing the current version of the Withdrawal Agreement. I have asked for evidence repeatedly.

You have cited a definition. The legal argument should include a definition but also a rationale. The definition you cite in Article 9 takes you to Article 10

Article 10 applies to

• family members of the persons referred to in points (a) to (d)

• family members who resided in the host State in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 16(2), 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC

points (a) to (d)

(a) Union citizens who...
(b) United Kingdom nationals who exercised their right to reside in a Member State
(c) Union citizens who...
(d) United Kingdom nationals who exercised their right as frontier workers

A member state is not a host state, apparently so none of points (a) to (d) seem to apply. Therefore, the first bullet point - family members of the persons referred to in points (a) to (d) - does not apply.

That leaves the second point - family members who resided in the host State in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 16(2), 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC

Have you checked to see if Zambrano carers are covered by Articles 12, 13, 16(2), 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC?

persons other than those defined in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC whose
presence is required by Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals in order not to
deprive those Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals of a right of residence
granted by this Part;

@Zambrano_ombudsman

This provision in my view, is designed to cover Zambrano, Chen, Baumbast cases and so on. Therefore to say the withdrawal agreement does not cover Zambrano is simply wrong.

That provision is designed to cover People who are not covered by Article 2(2) of the directive, but who nevertheless have right of Residence under EU law.

Accusing soeone of being wrong or incorrect, is not something I do lightly. I examine the opinion a person expresses before carefully reachinng that conclusion, and I derive no joy in telling someone they are wrong. I do so for constructive and not destructive reasons.

I accept you may hold any opinion you wish, but i do have responsibility to ensure that members who access this thread are not misled in any way shape or form. Therefore if i note you are posting something that cannot be reasonably possibly correct, then i will have to point that out.

If other members chooses to take your views, that is their perogative, but i need to inform them.

EU law will continue to apply in the UK, save for the fact that the UK will no longer be part of the EU political structure during the transition period. Therefore free movement law as it presently is, will continue for the next 11 months.

[Obie]

Dear Obie,

Even the EU admits that not all EU law will apply after 31 January 2020.

I did not tell you UK will be part of the political structure after the 31-1-2020. However so far the Issue for the 4 Freedoms are concerned, the UK will be part of the EU until 2020 December.

[Obie]

Dear Obie,



That leaves the second point - family members who resided in the host State in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 16(2), 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC

Have you checked to see if Zambrano carers are covered by Articles 12, 13, 16(2), 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC?

Those people are not Zambrano category and i never suggested they are.

(e) family members of the persons referred to in points (a) to (d), provided that they fulfil one of
the following conditions:
(i) they resided in the host State in accordance with Union law before the end of the
transition period and continue to reside there thereafter;

The above are categories of people that meets those requirements

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

Are Zambrano Carers protected by the Withdrawal Agreement? A discussion of the evidence.

Part 1: The Withdrawal Agreement, ARTICLE 10, Personal scope

1. Without prejudice to Title III, this Part shall apply to the following persons:

(a) Union citizens who exercised their right to reside in the United Kingdom in accordance with Union law before the end of the transition period and continue to reside there thereafter;

Zambrano carers are not union citizens, and their children are not considered Union citizens in this context, so this does not apply.

(b) United Kingdom nationals who exercised their right to reside in a Member State in accordance with Union law before the end of the transition period and continue to reside there thereafter;

I believe by Member State they mean any state other than the UK, so this protection does not apply to Zambrano carers.

(c) Union citizens who exercised their right as frontier workers in the United Kingdom in accordance with Union law before the end of the transition period and continue to do so thereafter;

Zambrano carers are not union citizens, and their children are not considered Union citizens in this context, so this does not apply.

(d) United Kingdom nationals who exercised their right as frontier workers in one or more Member States in accordance with Union law before the end of the transition period and continue to do so thereafter;

I believe by Member State they mean any state other than the UK, so this protection does not apply to Zambrano carers.

Article 9 Definitions:

"host State" means the Member State in which they exercised their right of residence in accordance with Union law before the end of the transition period and in which they continue to reside thereafter;

"family members" means the following persons, irrespective of their nationality, who fall within the personal scope provided for in Article 10 of this Agreement: persons other than those defined in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC whose presence is required by Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals in order not to deprive those Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals of a right of residence granted by this Part;

This article does not apply to Zambrano carers: Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC - any other family members, irrespective of their nationality, not falling under the definition in point 2 of Article 2 who, in the country from which they have come, are dependants or members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence, or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen;

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... munity.pdf

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

Dear Obie,

Even the EU admits that not all EU law will apply after 31 January 2020.

I did not tell you UK will be part of the political structure after the 31-1-2020. However so far the Issue for the 4 Freedoms are concerned, the UK will be part of the EU until 2020 December.

The 4 freedoms remain in place for EU citizens, yes. For Zambrano carers, no.

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

Obie,

Article 9 defines Zambrano carers. Article 10 defines the protections in place. There are two protections in Article 10.

Based on your reference, either a Zambrano carer qualifies under

• points (a) through (d) or

• under Articles 12, 13, 16(2), 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC

I don't see how Zambrano carers qualify under (a) through (d).

You say you don't see how Zambrano carers qualify under Articles 12, 13, 16(2), 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC.

So, where is the protection in the Withdrawal Agreement?

Thanks.

Dear Obie,



That leaves the second point - family members who resided in the host State in accordance with Articles 12, 13, 16(2), 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC

Have you checked to see if Zambrano carers are covered by Articles 12, 13, 16(2), 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC?

Those people are not Zambrano category and i never suggested they are.

(e) family members of the persons referred to in points (a) to (d), provided that they fulfil one of
the following conditions:
(i) they resided in the host State in accordance with Union law before the end of the
transition period and continue to reside there thereafter;

The above are categories of people that meets those requirements

[Obie]

Well Zambrano was made under Article 20 of the Treaty, which falls within one of the 4 Freedoms ( Right to Free Movement of Persons) .

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 20&from=EN

[Obie]

Firstly as a matter of law, the Zambrano Case law applies to the UK after the 31-01. Under the Treaty all CJEU caselaws and decisions are applicable in the UK, and those pending cases after transition applies, and UK court can make reference in relation to EU law before the transition and in the case of citizenship eights, 8 years after the Transition. Therefore if UK stop processing Zambrano application, such applicant can rely in court and under the treaty as Zambrano case applies in the UK.

If during the 8 years that the CJEU will continue to have jurisdiction, the UK make an attempt to apply Zambrano, then the UK court would have to make a reference to the CJEU.

So for present purpose it is clear that under the withdrawal agreement, and by virtue of the continued binding force of EU caselaws in the UK, zambrano will have to continue.

If my view on the categories of people covered under Article 9 and Article 10 are in dispute, then the court will have to make a reference.

As the UK is not attempting to say that Zambrano people will not be covered under the settled status, then this issue do not arise.

I do not believe for one minute that the UK has implemented Surinder Singh and Zambrano because the UK loves these people. It is doing so because it has an obligation to do so. If in the next 8 years after 31-12-2020 the UK acts funny, then it will have to go to the CJEU. No price for guessing what the CJEU will say about that, if the issue arose.

[mubashir1981]

Firstly as a matter of law, the Zambrano Case law applies to the UK after the 31-01. Under the Treaty all CJEU caselaws and decisions are applicable in the UK, and those pending cases after transition applies, and UK court can make reference in relation to EU law before the transition and in the case of citizenship eights, 8 years after the Transition. Therefore if UK stop processing Zambrano application, such applicant can rely in court and under the treaty as Zambrano case applies in the UK.

If during the 8 years that the CJEU will continue to have jurisdiction, the UK make an attempt to apply Zambrano, then the UK court would have to make a reference to the CJEU.

So for present purpose it is clear that under the withdrawal agreement, and by virtue of the continued binding force of EU caselaws in the UK, zambrano will have to continue.

If my view on the categories of people covered under Article 9 and Article 10 are in dispute, then the court will have to make a reference.

As the UK is not attempting to say that Zambrano people will not be covered under the settled status, then this issue do not arise.

I do not believe for one minute that the UK has implemented Surinder Singh and Zambrano because the UK loves these people. It is doing so because it has an obligation to do so. If in the next 8 years after 31-12-2020 the UK acts funny, then it will have to go to the CJEU. No price for guessing what the CJEU will say about that, if the issue arose.

This is what i said to zambrano ombadsman but he have no understanding of law. Well explained obie. I am.sure he stil didnt. He wants to see in wd agrement saying that zambrano will also continue adter 31st jan.
. Thanks

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

Well Zambrano was made under Article 20 of the Treaty, which falls within one of the 4 Freedoms ( Right to Free Movement of Persons) .

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 20&from=EN

As mentioned previously, not every aspect of the current arrangement applies after 31 January 2020.

The Withdrawal Agreement specifically addresses which aspects apply after 31 January 2020.

You referenced Article 9 of the Withdrawal Agreement. Article 9 is just a bunch of definitions. Article 9 refers you to Article 10.

Article 10 has the protections. You have not said which protection under Article 10 of the Withdrawal Agreement applies to Zambrano carers.

That is because none of the points apply to Zambrano carers based in the UK.

Only Zambrano carers who leave the UK and move to a member state are covered. Thereby, they are "exercising their right to reside).

If I ask you for evidence and you point me to Article 9, I would expect Article 9 to prove your point. Instead, you provided a definition. Then, once challenged, you start talking about Article 20.

People who are right should be able to be consistent.

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

Firstly as a matter of law, the Zambrano Case law applies to the UK after the 31-01.

Case law? That is your argument? There is a massive difference between the protections in the Withdrawal Agreement and UK case law. Whoever relies on UK case law to retain their rights as Zambrano carers is going almost certainly be disappointed. You do not want to rely on case law.

Under the Treaty all CJEU caselaws and decisions are applicable in the UK, and those pending cases after transition applies, and UK court can make reference in relation to EU law before the transition and in the case of citizenship eights, 8 years after the Transition.

You are jumping from arguing the Withdrawal Agreement applies, to now saying the Treaty protects Zambrano carers. If the Court has to choose between the Treaty and the Withdrawal Agreement, they are going to go with the Withdrawal Agreement. And the Withdrawal Agreement does not protect Zambrano carers.

You can make reference to the Treaty all you want in Court, but that is not the same as having a guarantee via the Withdrawal Agreement.

Therefore if UK stop processing Zambrano application, such applicant can rely in court and under the treaty as Zambrano case applies in the UK.

By the time you go to Court, it will be past December 2020. A plan to take the Home Office to court is expensive and unlikely to be successful in time. Everyone agrees at this point that a hard Brexit at the end of the year is the most likely scenario.

If during the 8 years that the CJEU will continue to have jurisdiction, the UK make an attempt to apply Zambrano, then the UK court would have to make a reference to the CJEU.

Who has the funds to fight this legal battle? The UK Court could rule in any direction.

So for present purpose it is clear that under the withdrawal agreement, and by virtue of the continued binding force of EU caselaws in the UK, zambrano will have to continue.

Where under the Withdrawal Agreement is it "clear" that Zambrano carers are protected? You have no made your case. You have not showed anywhere in the Withdrawal Agreement that Zambrano carers are protected.

If my view on the categories of people covered under Article 9 and Article 10 are in dispute, then the court will have to make a reference.

Agreed. But who wants to go to Court? Who will get through the Court in time before the hard Brexit?

As the UK is not attempting to say that Zambrano people will not be covered under the settled status, then this issue do not arise.

The UK Home Office is not processing outstanding applications in a timely manner. Their actions speak volumes.The issue arises as long the applications remain outstanding.

I do not believe for one minute that the UK has implemented Surinder Singh and Zambrano because the UK loves these people. It is doing so because it has an obligation to do so. If in the next 8 years after 31-12-2020 the UK acts funny, then it will have to go to the CJEU. No price for guessing what the CJEU will say about that, if the issue arose.

Are you really saying that if a hard Brexit occurs - which is the most likely option - the UK will have to go to the CJEU?

You seem to be admitting my point. Which is that Zambrano carers are not covered. If they want to challenge any adverse decisions by the Home Office, they will have to go to court. And that, has been my point all along.

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

This is what i said to zambrano ombadsman but he have no understanding of law. Well explained obie. I am.sure he stil didnt. He wants to see in wd agrement saying that zambrano will also continue adter 31st jan.
. Thanks

Mubashir,

Many, many people have argued that Zambrano carers are NOT COVERED by the Withdrawal Agreement.

Just because you say something, and people disagree with you, does not mean we do not understand the law.

You are exactly right that I want to see a provision in the Withdrawal Agreement for Zambrano carers to be protected after 31 January 2020. If you understand that such a provision does not exist, we are on the same page.

If you think Zambrano carers in the UK can be intentionally left out of the Withdrawal Agreement, and be perfectly fine because of a Treaty, you are possibly in for a rough surprise. Unless, you are the type of person who enjoys spending thousands of pounds hiring solicitors to take the Home Office to Court.

[Obie]

@Zambrano_ombudsman

Let's us just get one thing straight, i owe no obligations to provide you with information. I expect you to undertake your own research .

There is no need for a debater to be aggressive or abrasive, your point must speak for you, no point engaging in personal attack.

I have confidence in myself, therefore when my opponents say things i feel are wrong, i allow them to finsh there point, then i address the judge or my opponent in a respectable and dignified way, disagreeing with their views without engaging in personal attacks.

Firstly, i believe you are contradicting yourself and getting yourself into a muddle. I have been very consistent in the views i have expressed.

I brought article 20 up, to show you that it is covered under the 4 Freedoms in the Treaty, I also tried to explain that Zambrano was in relation to the right of a Union CItizen under Article 20.

You made a bold assertion on the forum which is clearly wrong. You said that Zambrano will cease to apply on the 31-01-2020. That is wrong beyond dispute. Zambrano will continue to apply until at least the 31-12-2020. I need not dwell on that part any further. The reason for the debate is to demonstrate that you are wrong on that point, and i hope you will not raise it again.

I accept Article 9 and 10, on a literal reading may be open to the interpretation you posited, i accept that, and i think you have some argument on the withdrawal agreement. However EU law must be read not only in a literal manner but purportive manner aswell. Therefore regards will be had to the purpose of the withdrawal act, to protect the rights of those who had rights prior to the UK's withdrawal, and to ensure that their rights are not disrupted.

Article 4(4) of the treaty states that EU law must be interprated consistently with CJEU case law. This will mostly cover Part 2 of the Treaty.

Article 131 provides for CJEU caselaws to be applied during the transition period.

Article 158 provides for EU law and the Preliminary ruling proceedings to apply until 2028 December.

It will be odd in the light of Article 4(4), for UK court to say that Zambrano carer are not covered. That will really be an outrageous endeavour, and it will drive a coach and horses through EU law. It will amount to a total abusrdity, and a breach of the withdrawal agreement, which must be read consistently with EU law and the decision of the CJEU.

If the Home Office was to try such a stunt, it will take even the most anti-EU and anti-Immigration judge about 30 minutes the most to strike down such a provision as unlawful. It will not stand judicial scrutiny.

I do not think a preliminary hearing will be necessary in such circumstance, but if such matter was to reach the CJEU, they will rule on it without the assistance of an Advocate general.

That is my take.

I will possibly make concession on the literal interpretation of Article 9 and 10 of the treaty, because of the use of terms like Union Citizen. However having regards to what Article 4(4) states, and applying a purportive reading of the agreement, it will be difficult to say that Zambrano will not be applicable.

4. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall in their implementation and application be interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period.

[snooky]

Zambrano ombudsman

I have provide to you in a long post already about protect under the withdrawal agreement for not only Zambrano carers but all derived members.

Read this also
heyWorkForYou
Menu
Derived Rights
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:45 pm on 5th March 2019.


Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Next clause »

“(1) Any person who has resided in the UK with derived rights under relevant EU caselaw shall be treated for the purposes of an application for leave to remain under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules (whether for settled or pre-settled status) on the same basis as an EEA or Swiss national who has resided in the UK.

(2) In this section, ‘relevant EU caselaw’ means—

(a) Zambrano (Case C-34/09 of the European Court of Justice);

(b) Chen (Case C-200/02);

(c) Ibrahim (Case C-310/08) and Teixeira (Case C-480/08).”—

This new clause would mean that non-EEA nationals with derived rights under EU caselaw would be treated on the same basis as EEA or Swiss nationals who had resided in the UK when applying for settled or pre-settled status under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.

Please read this and my long post and stop this

Regards

Snooky

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

@Zambrano_ombudsman

Let's us just get one thing straight, i owe no obligations to provide you with information. I expect you to undertake your own research .

I am not asking you for information. I am asking you to defend your position with evidence. If you don't want to, that is fine.

There is no need for a debater to be aggressive or abrasive, your point must speak for you, no point engaging in personal attack.

I have been called negative, been told I have no understanding of the law, been told to stop comments, etc. I find those posts agressive and abrasive. I have supported my contentions with reference to publicly available documents provided by the EU, Parliament, Home Office, etc.

I have confidence in myself, therefore when my opponents say things i feel are wrong, i allow them to finsh there point, then i address the judge or my opponent in a respectable and dignified way, disagreeing with their views without engaging in personal attacks.

I have confidence in myself as well. Particularly because I am not afraid to back up what I say with references.

Firstly, i believe you are contradicting yourself and getting yourself into a muddle. I have been very consistent in the views i have expressed.

It is not enough to "believe" someone is contradictory. Show it by reference to my arguments. You have been asked numerous times to provide evidence. You provided a link to a definition of Zambrano carers in the Withdrawal Agreement. When asked you for proof that the WA protects Zambrano carers, you refused to answer. You then switched to Article 20.

I brought article 20 up, to show you that it is covered under the 4 Freedoms in the Treaty, I also tried to explain that Zambrano was in relation to the right of a Union CItizen under Article 20.

The judge will have to decide between the Home Office argument that Zambrano carers are not covered under the Withdrawal Agreement - an agreement recently ratified by Parliament and Article 20. I am not confident any case would be heard on time. I do not believe many Zambrano carers can even afford the legal fees for the claim. Finally, I believe the judge will choose the Withdrawal Agreement over Article 20.

You made a bold assertion on the forum which is clearly wrong. You said that Zambrano will cease to apply on the 31-01-2020. That is wrong beyond dispute. Zambrano will continue to apply until at least the 31-12-2020. I need not dwell on that part any further. The reason for the debate is to demonstrate that you are wrong on that point, and i hope you will not raise it again.

The Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration apply after 31 Jan 2020. Zambrano carers in the UK are not covered by either. You have not proven your case. You just gave a link to a definition of Zambrano carers.

I accept Article 9 and 10, on a literal reading may be open to the interpretation you posited, i accept that, and i think you have some argument on the withdrawal agreement.

Then clearly, you can not argue that my assertion is "clearly wrong". You are contradicting yourself with regard to my arguments. First you say I am wrong beyond dispute. In the very next paragraph, you say I have a point.

However EU law must be read not only in a literal manner but purportive manner aswell. Therefore regards will be had to the purpose of the withdrawal act, to protect the rights of those who had rights prior to the UK's withdrawal, and to ensure that their rights are not disrupted.

I agree 100%. The point is that the Zambrano carer will have to hire a solicitor to make these arguments. That is expensive and the courts are full of cases. The Dec 2020 deadline is very close for filing a legal claim.

Article 4(4) of the treaty states that EU law must be interprated consistently with CJEU case law. This will mostly cover Part 2 of the Treaty.

Article 131 provides for CJEU caselaws to be applied during the transition period.

Article 158 provides for EU law and the Preliminary ruling proceedings to apply until 2028 December.

It will be odd in the light of Article 4(4), for UK court to say that Zambrano carer are not covered. That will really be an outrageous endeavour, and it will drive a coach and horses through EU law. It will amount to a total abusrdity, and a breach of the withdrawal agreement, which must be read consistently with EU law and the decision of the CJEU.

If the Home Office was to try such a stunt, it will take even the most anti-EU and anti-Immigration judge about 30 minutes the most to strike down such a provision as unlawful. It will not stand judicial scrutiny.

I do not think a preliminary hearing will be necessary in such circumstance, but if such matter was to reach the CJEU, they will rule on it without the assistance of an Advocate general.

That is my take.

A hard Brexit at the end of this year makes all of these points moot.

I will possibly make concession on the literal interpretation of Article 9 and 10 of the treaty, because of the use of terms like Union Citizen. However having regards to what Article 4(4) states, and applying a purportive reading of the agreement, it will be difficult to say that Zambrano will not be applicable.

Yes, so you are asking a judge to ignore what the Withdrawal Agreement actually says, and consider Article 4(4) while applying a purportive reading of the agreement. I believe there is a very strong chance the claim will not be heard in time, the judge will still rule against the Zambrano carer, and any win will be challenged by the Home Office for appeal.

I am not saying there isn't an argument. I am saying that people should be prepared, because Zambrano carers are not explicitly covered in the Withdrawal Agreement, which takes effect on 1 February 2020.

4. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall in their implementation and application be interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period.

[/quote]

[Zambrano_ombudsman]

Hey Snooky,

You have a right to post and so do I.

If you address a post to me, I have a right to reply.

You can stop addressing me at any time.

Your post is from 5th March 2019. That is before the current Withdrawal Agreement.

I would recommend you focus on the Withdrawal Agreement.

Look at Obie's recent post. Even he acknowledges I could very well be right with regard to Zambrano carers not being protected in this agreement.

You have not provided any evidence about Zambrano carers in the UK being protected in the Withdrawal Agreement. You referenced some Home Office document. I would not trust a Home Office document. You have EU settlement, so you don't have to rely on the document for your status.

Zambrano ombudsman

I have provide to you in a long post already about protect under the withdrawal agreement for not only Zambrano carers but all derived members.

Read this also
heyWorkForYou
Menu
Derived Rights
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:45 pm on 5th March 2019.

Please read this and my long post and stop this

Regards

Snooky

[Mommabeark]

Thank you very much family for congratulating me. Appreciate it. Thanks

Hi Zara mum, a massive congratulations to your dear! Please may I ask what your status was prior to the settled status?

[netqueen]

I do not believe zambrano ombudsman is being negative, he is being realistic...

We are not specifically included in the withdrawal agreement however the fact that eu rules apply we can continue to argue our right until then the end of such period.

It must be noted that if the home office choose to not process or grant further who will challenge. They can run the clock down if they chooses and then decline. That is the reality of the matter and I will not deny this.
Its always best to know your current position, law deal with facts.
what I take from my current position is I cannot allow home office to run down the clock on me

Look at it this way, is raining, EU citizens has 2 umbrellas(eu law and withdrawal agreement) , we have have 1(eu law) which will end after transition period. These are the facts... Put pressure on home office as application over 1 month is due a decision. Their website says this.

Notice they have not change the expected processing time on the gov website, that is not an accident. An explanation to why we have not gotten a decision is not necessarily a good thing. In 2019/2020 home office is more than equipped to carry out efficient and accurate checks quickly. They simply don't know how to get their own way with the latest Patel ruling, they would rather us all be on the 10 year expensive route, remember folks there is money to be made in migration aswel.

I'm my opinion (my opinion means nothing) we should be making noise a long time ago. One thing I know home office do not like is public scrutiny.. I have already been in contact with a journalist.

I will wait another 2 weeks before I consider my legal options.

Best wishes

HI Chris I am with you on this note the almighty Home office does not like Public scrutiny so they need to be challenged as much as possible. At least they cannot take all Non EU Citizens for granted. My application is past 6 months and already sent complaints. So getting on to the legal options now.
Hoping for something positive soon.

[snooky]

Hey Snooky,

You have a right to post and so do I.

If you address a post to me, I have a right to reply.

You can stop addressing me at any time.

Your post is from 5th March 2019. That is before the current Withdrawal Agreement.

I would recommend you focus on the Withdrawal Agreement.

Look at Obie's recent post. Even he acknowledges I could very well be right with regard to Zambrano carers not being protected in this agreement.

You have not provided any evidence about Zambrano carers in the UK being protected in the Withdrawal Agreement. You referenced some Home Office document. I would not trust a Home Office document. You have EU settlement, so you don't have to rely on the document for your status.

Zambrano ombudsman

I have provide to you in a long post already about protect under the withdrawal agreement for not only Zambrano carers but all derived members.

Read this also
heyWorkForYou
Menu
Derived Rights
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:45 pm on 5th March 2019.

Please read this and my long post and stop this

Regards

Snooky

Zambrano_ombudsman

PART 3

Citizens' rights

Rights in relation to entry and residence
7Rights related to residence: application deadline and temporary protection

(1)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for any of the following purposes—
(a)specifying the deadline that applies for the purposes of—
(i)the first sub-paragraph of Article 18(1)(b) of the withdrawal agreement (deadline for the submission of applications for the new residence status described in Article 18(1));
(ii)the first sub-paragraph of Article 17(1)(b) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (deadline for the submission of applications for the new residence status described in Article 17(1));
(iii)the first sentence of Article 16(1)(b) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (deadline for the submission of applications for the new residence status described in Article 16(1));
(b)implementing Article 18(2) of the withdrawal agreement (protection for Union citizens etc. in the period prior to the deadline for the submission of applications for the new residence status described in Article 18(1));
(c)implementing Article 17(2) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (protection for EEA EFTA nationals etc. in the period prior to the deadline for the submission of applications for the new residence status described in Article 17(1));
(d)implementing Article 16(2) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (protection for Swiss nationals etc. in the period prior to the deadline for the submission of applications for the new residence status described in Article 16(1));
(e)implementing Article 18(3) of the withdrawal agreement (protection for Union citizens etc. pending a final decision on an application for the new residence status described in Article 18(1));
(f)implementing Article 17(3) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (protection for EEA EFTA nationals etc. pending a final decision on an application for the new residence status described in Article 17(1));
(g)implementing Article 16(3) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (protection for Swiss nationals etc. pending a final decision on an application for the new residence status described in Article 16(1)).
(2)If the Minister considers it appropriate, regulations under subsection (1) relating to the implementation of a provision mentioned in subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d) may be made so as to apply both to—
(a)persons to whom the provision in question applies, and
(b)persons to whom that provision does not apply but who may be granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules (see section 17) and who do not have such leave.
(3)If the Minister considers it appropriate, regulations under subsection (1) relating to the implementation of a provision mentioned in subsection (1)(e), (f) or (g) may be made so as to apply both to—
(a)persons to whom the provision in question applies, and
(b)persons to whom that provision does not apply but who make an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules.
(4)The power to make regulations under subsection (1) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.
8Frontier workers
(1)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing any of the following—
(a)Articles 24(3) and 25(3) of the withdrawal agreement (rights of employed and self-employed frontier workers) other than as regards rights enjoyed as workers (see section 14(1));
(b)Articles 23(3) and 24(3) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (rights of employed and self-employed frontier workers) other than as regards rights enjoyed as workers (see section 14(2));
(c)Article 20(2) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (rights of frontier workers to enter and exit).
(2)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing any of the following—
(a)Article 26 of the withdrawal agreement (issue of documents);
(b)Article 25 of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (issue of documents);
(c)Article 21(1)(a) and (2) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (issue of documents).
(3)The power to make regulations under subsection (1) or (2) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts.
9Restrictions of rights of entry and residence
(1)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing any of the following—
(a)Article 20(1), (3) and (4) of the withdrawal agreement (restrictions of the rights of entry and residence);
(b)Article 19(1), (3) and (4) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (restrictions of the rights of entry and residence);
(c)Articles 17(1) and (3) and 20(3) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (restrictions of the rights of entry and residence).
(2)If the Minister considers it appropriate, regulations under subsection (1) relating to the implementation of a provision mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) may be made so as to apply both to—
(a)persons to whom the provision in question applies, and
(b)persons to whom that provision does not apply but who—
(i)have entry clearance granted by virtue of relevant entry clearance immigration rules (see section 17),
(ii)have leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom granted by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules (see section 17), or
(iii)otherwise have leave to enter granted after arriving with entry clearance granted by virtue of relevant entry clearance immigration rules.
(3)In subsection (2)(b), references to a person who has entry clearance or leave to enter or remain include references to a person who would have had entry clearance or leave to enter or remain but for—
(a)the making of a deportation order under section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, or
(b)the making of any other decision made in connection with restricting the right of the person to enter the United Kingdom.
(4)The power to make regulations under subsection (1) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made—
(a)by or under the Immigration Acts, or
(b)under other primary legislation.
10Retention of existing grounds for deportation
(1)Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2)After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A)The Secretary of State may not deem a relevant person’s deportation to be conducive to the public good under subsection (5) if the person’s deportation—
(a)would be in breach of the obligations of the United Kingdom under Article 20 of the EU withdrawal agreement, Article 19 of the EEA EFTA separation agreement, or Article 17 or 20(3) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement, or
(b)would be in breach of those obligations if the provision in question mentioned in paragraph (a) applied in relation to the person.”
(3)After subsection (6) insert—
“(6A)A court may not recommend under subsection (6) that a relevant person be deported if the offence for which the person was convicted consisted of or included conduct that took place before IP completion day.”
(4)After subsection (9) insert—
“(10)For the purposes of this section, a person is a “relevant person”—
(a)if the person is in the United Kingdom (whether or not they have entered within the meaning of section 11(1)) having arrived with entry clearance granted by virtue of relevant entry clearance immigration rules,
(b)if the person has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom granted by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules,
(c)if the person may be granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a person who has a right to enter the United Kingdom by virtue of—
(i)Article 32(1)(b) of the EU withdrawal agreement,
(ii)Article 31(1)(b) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement, or
(iii)Article 26a(1)(b) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement,whether or not the person has been granted such leave, or
(d)if the person may enter the United Kingdom by virtue of regulations made under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (frontier workers), whether or not the person has entered by virtue of those regulations.
(11)In this section—
“EEA EFTA separation agreement” and “Swiss citizens’ rights agreement” have the same meanings as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (see section 39(1) of that Act);
“relevant entry clearance immigration rules” and “residence scheme immigration rules” have the meanings given by section 17 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
(5)In section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (exceptions to automatic deportation), after subsection (6A), insert—
“(6B)Exception 7 is where—
(a)the foreign criminal is a relevant person, and
(b)the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted as mentioned in section 32(1)(b) consisted of or included conduct that took place before IP completion day.
(6C)For the purposes of subsection (6B), a foreign criminal is a “relevant person”—
(a)if the foreign criminal is in the United Kingdom (whether or not they have entered within the meaning of section 11(1) of the Immigration Act 1971) having arrived with entry clearance granted by virtue of relevant entry clearance immigration rules,
(b)if the foreign criminal has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom granted by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules,
(c)if the foreign criminal may be granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a person who has a right to enter the United Kingdom by virtue of—
(i)Article 32(1)(b) of the EU withdrawal agreement,
(ii)Article 31(1)(b) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement, or
(iii)Article 26a(1)(b) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement,whether or not the foreign criminal has been granted such leave, or
(d)if the foreign criminal may enter the United Kingdom by virtue of regulations made under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (frontier workers), whether or not the foreign criminal has entered by virtue of those regulations.
(6D)In this section—
“EEA EFTA separation agreement” and “Swiss citizens’ rights agreement” have the same meanings as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (see section 39(1) of that Act);
“relevant entry clearance immigration rules” and “residence scheme immigration rules” have the meanings given by section 17 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
(6)In section 3(10) of the Immigration Act 1971 and section 33(6C) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (for which see subsections (4) and (5) above), references to having leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom granted by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules include references to having such leave granted by virtue of those rules before section 17 comes into force.
11Appeals etc. against citizens’ rights immigration decisions
(1)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision for, or in connection with, appeals against citizens’ rights immigration decisions of a kind described in the regulations.
(2)For the purposes of this section, each of the following is a “citizens’ rights immigration decision”—
(a)a decision made in connection with entry clearance by virtue of relevant entry clearance immigration rules (see section 17);
(b)a decision made in connection with leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules (see section 17);
(c)a decision made in connection with entry clearance for the purposes of acquiring leave to enter or remain in relation to a healthcare right of entry;
(d)a decision made in connection with leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom in relation to a healthcare right of entry;
(e)a decision made in connection with a right to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of regulations made under section 8 (frontier workers);
(f)a decision to make, or a refusal to revoke, a deportation order under section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 in relation to a relevant person;
(g)any other decision made in connection with restricting the right of a relevant person to enter the United Kingdom.
(3)A Minister of the Crown may also by regulations make provision for, or in connection with, reviews (including judicial reviews) of decisions within subsection (2)(g).
(4)The power to make regulations under subsection (1) or (3) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.
(5)Such regulations may, for example, apply with or without modifications any enactment which applies in relation to appeals under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 or section 2 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.
(6)For the purposes of subsection (2), a “healthcare right of entry” is a right to enter the United Kingdom that a person has by virtue of—
(a)Article 32(1)(b) of the withdrawal agreement,
(b)Article 31(1)(b) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement, or
(c)Article 26a(1)(b) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement.
(7)For the purposes of subsection (2)(f) and (g), a person is a “relevant person” if—
(a)Article 20 of the withdrawal agreement, Article 19 of the EEA EFTA separation agreement or (as the case may be) Articles 17 or 20(3) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (restrictions of the rights of entry and residence) applies to the person, or
(b)the person is not within paragraph (a) but—
(i)has entry clearance granted by virtue of relevant entry clearance immigration rules,
(ii)has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom granted by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules, or
(iii)otherwise has leave to enter granted after arriving with entry clearance granted by virtue of relevant entry clearance immigration rules.
(8)In subsection (7)(b), references to a person who has entry clearance or leave to enter or remain include references to a person who would have had entry clearance or leave to enter or remain but for—
(a)the making of a deportation order under section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, or
(b)the making of any other decision made in connection with restricting the right of the person to enter the United Kingdom.
Professional qualifications
12Recognition of professional qualifications
(1)An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate—
(a)to implement Chapter 3 of Title II of Part 2 of the withdrawal agreement (professional qualifications),
(b)to supplement the effect of section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to that Chapter, or
(c)otherwise for the purposes of dealing with matters arising out of, or related to, that Chapter (including matters arising by virtue of section 7A of that Act and that Chapter).
(2)An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate—
(a)to implement Chapter 3 of Title II of Part 2 of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (professional qualifications),
(b)to supplement the effect of section 7B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to that Chapter, or
(c)otherwise for the purposes of dealing with matters arising out of, or related to, that Chapter (including matters arising by virtue of section 7B of that Act and that Chapter).
(3)An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate—
(a)to implement professional qualification provisions of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement,
(b)to supplement the effect of section 7B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to those provisions, or
(c)otherwise for the purposes of dealing with matters arising out of, or related to, those provisions (including matters arising by virtue of section 7B of that Act and those provisions).
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3) the following are “professional qualification provisions” of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement—
(a)Part 4 of that agreement (mutual recognition of professional qualifications);
(b)Article 23(4) of that agreement as regards the recognition of professional qualifications.
(5)If an appropriate authority considers it appropriate, regulations under subsection (1) or (2) relating to the implementation of a provision of Chapter 3 of Title II of Part 2 of the withdrawal agreement or of the EEA EFTA separation agreement may be made so as to apply both to—
(a)persons to whom the provision in question applies, and
(b)persons to whom that provision does not apply but who may be granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules, whether or not they have been granted such leave (see section 17).
(6)The power to make regulations under subsection (1), (2) or (3) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.
(7)In subsection (6) “enactment” does not include primary legislation passed or made after IP completion day.
(8)In this section, “appropriate authority” means—
(a)a Minister of the Crown,
(b)a devolved authority, or
(c)a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority.
(9)Schedule 1 contains further provision about the power of devolved authorities to make regulations under this section.
Co-ordination of social security systems
13Co-ordination of social security systems
(1)An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate—
(a)to implement Title III of Part 2 of the withdrawal agreement (co-ordination of social security systems),
(b)to supplement the effect of section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to that Title, or
(c)otherwise for the purposes of dealing with matters arising out of, or related to, that Title (including matters arising by virtue of section 7A of that Act and that Title).
(2)An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate—
(a)to implement Title III of Part 2 of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (co-ordination of social security systems),
(b)to supplement the effect of section 7B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to that Title, or
(c)otherwise for the purposes of dealing with matters arising out of, or related to, that Title (including matters arising by virtue of section 7B of that Act and that Title).
(3)An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate—
(a)to implement social security co-ordination provisions of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement,
(b)to supplement the effect of section 7B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to those provisions, or
(c)otherwise for the purposes of dealing with matters arising out of, or related to, those provisions (including matters arising by virtue of section 7B of that Act and those provisions).
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3) the following are “social security co-ordination provisions” of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement—
(a)Part 3 of that agreement (co-ordination of social security systems);
(b)Article 23(4) of that agreement as regards social security co-ordination.
(5)The power to make regulations under subsection (1), (2) or (3) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.
(6)In this section, “appropriate authority” means—
(a)a Minister of the Crown,
(b)a devolved authority, or
(c)a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority.
(7)Schedule 1 contains further provision about the power of devolved authorities to make regulations under this section.
Equal treatment etc.
14Non-discrimination, equal treatment and rights of workers etc.
(1)An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing any of the following provisions of the withdrawal agreement—
(a)Article 12 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality);
(b)Article 23 (right to equal treatment);
(c)Articles 24(1) and 25(1) (rights of workers and the self-employed);
(d)Articles 24(3) and 25(3) (rights of employed or self-employed frontier workers) as regards rights enjoyed as workers.
(2)An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing any of the following provisions of the EEA EFTA separation agreement—
(a)Article 11 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality);
(b)Article 22 (right to equal treatment);
(c)Articles 23(1) and 24(1) (rights of workers and the self-employed);
(d)Articles 23(3) and 24(3) (rights of employed or self-employed frontier workers) as regards rights enjoyed as workers.
(3)An appropriate authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing any of the following provisions of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement—
(a)Article 7 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality);
(b)Article 18 (right to take up employment etc.);
(c)Article 19 (rights of employed or self-employed persons etc.);
(d)Article 20(1) (rights of frontier workers);
(e)Article 23(1) (rights of persons providing services).
(4)If the appropriate authority considers it appropriate, regulations under subsection (1), (2) or (3) relating to the implementation of a provision mentioned in that subsection, may be made so as to apply both to—
(a)persons to whom the provision in question applies, and
(b)persons to whom that provision does not apply but who may be granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules, whether or not they have been granted such leave (see section 17).
(5)The power to make regulations under subsection (1), (2) or (3) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.
(6)In this section, “appropriate authority” means—
(a)a Minister of the Crown,
(b)a devolved authority, or
(c)a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority.
(7)Schedule 1 contains further provision about the power of devolved authorities to make regulations under this section.
Independent Monitoring Authority
15Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements
(1)A body corporate called the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements is established.
(2)In this Part that body is referred to as “the IMA”.
(3)Schedule 2 contains provision relating to the IMA (including provisions about the IMA’s constitution and functions).
General
16Regulations: supplementary
(1)In sections 7, 8, 9 and 14—
(a)a power to make provision for the purpose of implementing a provision of the withdrawal agreement includes power to make provision to supplement the effect of section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to that provision of the agreement,
(b)a power to make provision for the purpose of implementing a provision of the EEA EFTA separation agreement includes power to make provision to supplement the effect of section 7B of that Act in relation to that provision of the agreement, and
(c)a power to make provision for the purpose of implementing a provision of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement includes power to make provision to supplement the effect of section 7B of that Act in relation to that provision of the agreement.
(2)The conferral of a power on a Minister of the Crown under section 7, 8, 9 or 11 does not affect the extent of any power of a devolved authority under section 12, 13 or 14 which overlaps with a power under section 7, 8, 9 or 11 by virtue of section 17(4).
(3)Regulations under this Part may not provide for the conferral of functions (including the conferral of a discretion) on, or the delegation of functions to, a person who is not a public authority (but may so provide if the person is a public authority).
(4)In subsection (3), “public authority” means a person who exercises functions of a public nature.
17Interpretation: Part 3
(1)In this Part, “residence scheme immigration rules” means—
(a)Appendix EU to the immigration rules except those rules, or changes to that Appendix, which are identified in the immigration rules as not having effect in connection with the residence scheme that operates in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, and
(b)any other immigration rules which are identified in the immigration rules as having effect in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.
(2)In this Part, “relevant entry clearance immigration rules” means any immigration rules which are identified in the immigration rules as having effect in connection with the granting of entry clearance for the purposes of acquiring leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules.
(3)In this Part, references to having leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom granted by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules include references to having such leave granted by virtue of those rules before this section comes into force.
(4)In this Part, a reference to a Chapter, Title, Part or other provision of the withdrawal agreement, EEA EFTA separation agreement or Swiss citizens’ rights agreement includes a reference to—
(a)any other provision of the agreement in question so far as relating to that Chapter, Title, Part or other provision, and
(b)any provision of EU law which is applied by, or referred to in, that Chapter, Title, Part or other provision (to the extent of the application or reference).

Remember the UK parliament are treating people with derivative as EEA nationals.

No offence. Provision is already agreed in the WA

[snooky]

Zambrano ombudsman

I have provide to you in a long post already about protect under the withdrawal agreement for not only Zambrano carers but all derived members.

Read this also
heyWorkForYou
Menu
Derived Rights
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:45 pm on 5th March 2019.


Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Next clause »

“(1) Any person who has resided in the UK with derived rights under relevant EU caselaw shall be treated for the purposes of an application for leave to remain under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules (whether for settled or pre-settled status) on the same basis as an EEA or Swiss national who has resided in the UK.

(2) In this section, ‘relevant EU caselaw’ means—

(a) Zambrano (Case C-34/09 of the European Court of Justice);

(b) Chen (Case C-200/02);

(c) Ibrahim (Case C-310/08) and Teixeira (Case C-480/08).”—

This new clause would mean that non-EEA nationals with derived rights under EU caselaw would be treated on the same basis as EEA or Swiss nationals who had resided in the UK when applying for settled or pre-settled status under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.

Please read this and my long post and stop this

Regards

Snooky

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/202 ... /3/enacted