Hiravindra121 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:54 amHi snookysnooky wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:49 pm@Second Part of Today's Post (@those that are refused based on)
Judge’s conclusions
The First Tier Tribunal Judge made the following findings in allowing the appeal:
Having regard to the totality of evidence, there was no dispute/challenge in the refusal decision that both Appellants are joint primary carers of a British citizen child.
There was no dispute that the British Citizen child is residing in the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, there was no dispute that the British Citizen child would not be able to continue to reside in the United Kingdom or in another EEA state if the Appellants left the United Kingdom for an indefinite period.
Accordingly, the Judge was satisfied that the Appellants met the criteria under Regulation 16(5) of the EEA Regulations.
The Judge stated that the Policy relied upon by the Secretary of State does not appear to be accurate in law. It does not represent a true reflection of the Court of Appeal judgement.
This conclusion is also apparent from the subsequent Supreme Court consideration of the case.
The Judge concluded that the reality was the Appellants made an application under the EEA Regulations and on the evidence before the Tribunal, they met the criteria under Regulation 16(5)of the EEA Regulations. As such they were entitled to succeed in their appeal under the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016.
All these are with you already
can you please provide the case no
This came just some weeks after Patel vs SSHD 16 December 2019.
On 30 January 2020 and having heard a number of test cases, Judge Neville of the First-tier Tribunal (IAC) at Taylor House ruled that a person meeting the requirements Regulation 16 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (‘the 2016 Regulations’) has a derivative right of residence notwithstanding that he or she has not yet made an application under the Immigration Rules and pursuant to Article 8 ECHR. The upshot is that the novel concept set out in Home Office policy that a Zambrano carer must first make an unsuccessful fee-paid human rights application before an application under the 2016 Regulations can be submitted is unlawful.
Look through my post and you will find the full court ruling.