As mentioned before, Judge Neville is a First Tier Tribunal judge. First Tier Tribunal judges make decisions all the time. Some FTT judges agree with Judge Neville, others may not. It is called case law.Miss-Suz wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:40 pmOn 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.
This apply to my case
The Home Office are not bothered by a First Tier Tribunal judge. They ignore FTT decisions all the time. The FTT is the lowest court for immigration hearings. The Court of Appeal, which is a high court, probably disagrees with Judge Neville. It isn't enough to rely on Judge Neville's ruling.
A strong legal argument would start from the Court of Appeal, then explain the Supreme Court's ruling, then reference Judge Neville of the FTT, and finally Judge Grubb of the UT.
Again, the Home Office have 28 days for the AR. The FTT gives you only 14 days from the date of refusal.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... de-eng.pdf