Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[marcidevpal]

Per UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA

8. The submissions of the representatives can be summarised as follows.

Mr Deller confirmed that the Secretary of State was pursuing her appeal because the appellant had leave to remain in the UK when she applied under the EUSS and still did, owing to the operation of Section 3C of the 1971 Act. He explained that a concession given in a similar case, known to all present, was probably wrongly given.

Mr Thoree sought to defend the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, stating that it was correct at the time and that it should not make a difference that matters had moved on. Many other cases had resulted in a grant of ILR on identical facts.

The judge concluded that Regulation 16 was satisfied and that was all that was required.

On Akinsanya, Mr Thoree stated that the only exclusion related to indefinite leave to remain and therefore an in-time application should not prevent a successful variation from limited leave to remain to settlement under the EUSS. He added that an invalid application for administrative review was made prior to an appeal being lodged which meant that the respondent’s leave was extinguished prior to the appeal.

In reply, Mr Deller stated that the administrative review application was too late, but this did not matter as the damage had already been done by the application under the EUSS being made prior to the expiry of leave.

I can't tell if the following sentences represent Mr Deller's arguments, or the Judge's

There had been much confusion as to the outcome of Akinsanya, however the Court of Appeal had agreed that an application under the EUSS was a right of last resort, and this justified the Secretary of State’s position. The scheme Rules were lawful.

At the end of the hearing, I indicated that I was satisfied that there was a material error of law in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and that the decision was set aside. After seeking the views of the representatives, I agreed to remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

Three points:

1.) It seems the Home Office admitted to UT Judge Kamara that if you allowed your leave to remain under Appendix FM or FP to expire, and then made an application for EUSS, that your application should succeed.

In reply, Mr Deller stated that the administrative review application was too late, but this did not matter as the damage had already been done by the application under the EUSS being made prior to the expiry of leave.

The Home Office switch between two positions. Sometimes, they say the problem is if you have leave under Appendix FM at the time you apply under EUSS. Other times, they say the problem is if you have leave under Appendix FM on 31 December 2020.


2.) Bardhi's barrister, Mr Thoree, raised a really good point.

Many other cases had resulted in a grant of ILR on identical facts.

This point is the gorilla in the room. Everyone knows there are Zambrano carers like Bardhi, or like Akinsaya, who have settlement under the EU settlement scheme. The implementation of this scheme was irrational and discriminatory from the start. As usual, the Home Office will almost certainly get away with it.


3.) I can't tell if the following sentences represent Mr Deller's arguments, or the Judge's

There had been much confusion as to the outcome of Akinsanya, however the Court of Appeal had agreed that an application under the EUSS was a right of last resort, and this justified the Secretary of State’s position. The scheme Rules were lawful.

If the above sentences represent the Judge's thoughts, I don't see where the Judge draws that conclusion, after re-reading the Court of Appeal judgement. The scheme Rules are obviously not lawful, because they include definitions that even the Court of Appeal has said are unlawful.

[marcidevpal]

Has anyone else noticed in these published Zambrano / EU Settlement rulings that the UK judges never reference human rights laws such as Article 8?

[Eburnie27]

Has anyone else noticed in these published Zambrano / EU Settlement rulings that the UK judges never reference human rights laws such as Article 8?

Forever grateful , you are a mine of gold /knowledge
I wasn't even aware of all information that you have given

[marcidevpal]

You're welcome. Pity about the all the opt outs by the UK.

I hope there will be some really interesting submissions from all Zambrano carers

[marcidevpal]

In person versus paper hearings - my thoughts

After reading the Home Office's argument that the EU settlement scheme is a "scheme of last resort", I thought about how I would have reacted in the Court room.

Brexit happened in June 2016. After 8.5 years of uncertainty, to hear the Home Office suggest that the EU settlement scheme is for the desperate, would have set my mind racing.

The point I am trying to make, is that we should all take stock of where we are emotionally before we agree to enter a court room.

We should all be realistic about the Home Office's long established position on (single) parents of British children and what that means in terms of their tone.

You do not have to look far in this country to find blatant stereotyping of Zambrano carers, as people who are undeserving and burdensome. As such, you may want re-evaluate your decision based on what you are in a position to handle. And good luck

[marcidevpal]

One thing I have noticed in browsing the Supreme Court decision, MM et al v SSHD, is that the Supreme Court references rulings by which the UK is not bound.

I actually learned about the Council of Europe Recommendations through the Supreme Court's decision.

It seems as though, despite the opt outs, it may be worth leveraging the arguments made in the

• 2003 Long Term Residence Directive, and the

• Recommendation Rec(2000)15 of the Committee of Ministers to member states concerning the security of residence of long-term migrants

and let the judge decide to what extent they may want to take it into account.

[Nyamebeye]

Has anyone else noticed in these published Zambrano / EU Settlement rulings that the UK judges never reference human rights laws such as Article 8?

My understanding is that you cannot raise human rights in EEA applications. That's is why they never add it to the reasons for appeal. Instead they have have been stating something in the likes of 'the refusal is restricting your EEA rights'.

[marcidevpal]

Are the Akinsaya-type appeals still "EEA" appeals?

EEA stands for the European Economic Area. It creates a single market for the free movement of goods and people.

The UK no longer participates in the EEA. The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement establishes some free movement rights, but not for UK Zambrano carers.

The applications made are EU settlement scheme applications. The EU Settlement Scheme was created by the UK, as agreed in the Withdrawal Agreement. It is also known as Appendix EU of the UK Immigration Rules. Some Zambrano carers also have leave to remain under Appendix FM or FP of the UK Immigration Rules.

If these appeals were really EEA appeals, the European Courts could be relied upon. After Brexit, Zambrano carers have to rely on the UK Courts, or the European Court of Human Rights.

The Council of Europe created the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK is still a member of the Council of Europe, although MPs and Ministers call for the UK to withdraw from the Council of Europe.

Article 8 Human Rights will be an option, I believe a checkbox, when you file your appeal before the First Tier Tribunal. Either way, Zambrano carers have a right to raise Article 8.

The Home Office said the EU Settlement Scheme would be based on the EEA Regulations.

To rely on the EEA Regulations, is to accept the EEA's definition of a Zambrano carer.

Then, they lost before UT Judge Mostyn. Then, they lost before the Court of Appeal.

It seems they now say the EU Settlement Scheme, as it relates to Zambrano carers, does not rely on the EEA Regualations.

The Home Office keeps changing what their original intention was in order to try to keep Akinsaya appeals from winning.

It is your job when you file the appeal to show that they did intend to rely on the EEA.

One proof is the First Tier Tribunal calling them EEA appeals, if that is what they do.

[marcidevpal]

Or, to put it another way -

In December 2021, when the Court of Appeal asked the Home Office what their intention was, they were basically saying,

"Home Office, is your intention to rely on the EEA Regulations? If so, do you accept that if your understanding of the EEA Regulations is wrong, then your refusal was unlawful?

To which the Home Office basically replied,

"Yes, we intend to rely on the EEA Regulations, and we accept that if our understanding of the Regulations is wrong, then our refusal was unlawful."

Then, the Court of Appeal ruled that Akinsaya type Zambrano carers are Zambrano carers, and the Home Office's understanding of "Zambrano carer" is wrong. Therefore, their refusal was unlawful.

The Home Office then agreed to update its position. (As of 1st November 2022, they have not updated their guidance.)

In June 2022, the Home Office said essentially,

"Our original intention was not to rely on the EEA Regulations but to exclude Zambrano carers, as defined under the EEA Regulations, who had leave to remain under either Appendix FM or Appendix FP on 31 December 2020. Since Ms Akinsaya had leave to remain on 31 December 2020, we still refuse her application."

This position is apparently being challenged via judicial review.

I hope you can see -

1.) They clearly intended to rely on the EEA Regulations, even their recent refusal letters mention the EEA Regulations.

2.) Their new position is illogical. They should start from scratch instead of this hybrid approach.

2.a.) If they start from scratch without using any EEA language or terminology, it will be obvious that they are creating policy after the fact, which opens them up to discrimination claims.

2.b.) If they continue with their hybrid approach, it is hard to see how the courts will allow it. If UK Courts do allow it, the claim should go to the European Court of Human Rights.

[marcidevpal]

Is the EU Settlement Scheme a Last Resort?

Mr Deller, representing the Home Office in a recent case, said that the EU Settlement Scheme was a "Scheme of last resort".

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 04750-2021

Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KAMARA
Between THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant
and
BARDHI (ANONYMITY DIRECTION not made) Respondent

The EU Settlement Scheme, however, when considered in its entirety, is a requirement of the Withdrawal Agreement. Therefore, it can not be a scheme of last resort.

I think Mr Deller means, the EUSS, as it applies to Zambrano carers, is a scheme of last resort.

If so, the Home Office appears to have borrowed a viewpoint taken on Zambrano carers and unceremoniously dump it on top of the EU Settlement Scheme.

The thinking by the Home Office appears to be as follows:

The Zambrano right is a 'right of last resort'. Therefore, the EU Settlement Scheme, as it relates to Zambrano carers, is, by extension, a Scheme of last resort.

Mr Deller should explain why the Home Office takes this position, at what point it communicated this status to Zambrano carers, and why it is in the public interest. Ultimately, this position is discriminatory.

[marcidevpal]

United Nations versus Denmark

UNHCR welcomes the opportunity to intervene in this case, as granted by the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) in its letter of 18 December 2018

.

M.A. v. Denmark (Application no. 6697/18) before the European Court of Human Rights

https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5c4591164.pdf

Like the UK, Denmark is another country that opts out of human rights directives.

In a rare first, the United Nations is actually suing Denmark -

The 3 year waiting period is too long

3.1.2. It is worth noting that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in the context of its periodic review of Denmark, expressed concern about the application of the three-year waiting period for holders of temporary protection status, and recommended that Denmark “should consider reducing the duration of residence required of persons under temporary protection status in order for them to obtain family reunification, in compliance with the Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights].”20

Human rights law

3.1.1. The right to family and private life is recognized as an essential right under international human rights law. Under Article 16(3) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the family is recognized as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”15 This universal right is given binding effect by Article 23(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Denmark and all other European States are State parties.16 Article 17 of the ICCPR further affirms that no one shall be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her family and that everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference. This right is also expressed in similar language in Article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)17, and Article 14 of the Convention on Migrant Workers.18 The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), goes even further in Article 10(1) by providing that the “widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family.”19

Conclusion

4.1. In light of all the foregoing, UNHCR submits that Danish legislation and practice is at variance with both international and European human rights law, as it undermines the fundamental right to family life for persons in need of international protection and excludes certain groups in a disproportionate and discriminatory fashion, contrary to what is required under Article 8 ECHR as well as Article 14 read in conjunction with 8 ECHR.

This claim shows that if UK Zambrano carers complain the United Nations about the way they have been treated under the EU Settlement Scheme, there is the smallest chance that the United Nations may get involved.

https://ask.un.org/faq/14425

[marcidevpal]

The Home Office's Original Intention

Scenario 1: You can argue SSHD intended to follow the EEA Regulations

House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, Number 8584, Published February 2020

3.1 Derivative rights of residence

The EU Settlement Scheme is also open to people resident in the UK based on their ‘derivative right’ to reside under EU law. These include ‘Chen carers’ (the primary carer of a self-sufficient EEA citizen child), ‘Ibrahim and Teixeira’ cases (a child of a former EEA citizen worker who is in education in the UK and their primary carer), and ‘Zambrano carers’ (the primary carer of a British citizen child or dependent adult).

In September 2018 it was estimated there were around 1,700 people currently relying on a derived right to reside in the UK.

Unlike Chen and Ibrahim and Teixeira cases, Zambrano carers are not protected by the WA, however the Government stated in the

Explanatory Memorandum to the Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules (HC 1919) that:

In light of the particular circumstances of these cases, it is appropriate that their long-term stance in the UK should be protected by bringing them within the scope of the EU Settlement Scheme.

The Government was criticised, including by the Refugee and Migrant Children’s consortium, for the delay in clarifying the rights of people with derived rights of residence in the UK following Brexit.

The Government initially said in the Statement of Intent for the EUSS in June 2018 that ‘further details will be provided in due course on the new status available to them,’47 however the detail was not provided until March 2019.

The Home Affairs Select Committee report on the EUSS stated:

It should not have taken such a length of time for the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement on the rights of Zambrano carers under the Settlement Scheme and following Brexit.

We welcome the clarity the Government has now afford this group, but it is unacceptable that these citizens were left in limbo for so long.

[marcidevpal]

The Home Office's Original Intention

Scenario 1: You can argue SSHD intended to follow the EEA Regulations

House of Commons Library, Briefing Paper, Number 8584, Published February 2020

3.1 Derivative rights of residence

The EU Settlement Scheme is also open to people resident in the UK based on their ‘derivative right’ to reside under EU law. These include ‘Chen carers’ (the primary carer of a self-sufficient EEA citizen child), ‘Ibrahim and Teixeira’ cases (a child of a former EEA citizen worker who is in education in the UK and their primary carer), and ‘Zambrano carers’ (the primary carer of a British citizen child or dependent adult).

In September 2018 it was estimated there were around 1,700 people currently relying on a derived right to reside in the UK.

Unlike Chen and Ibrahim and Teixeira cases, Zambrano carers are not protected by the WA, however the Government stated in the

Explanatory Memorandum to the Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules (HC 1919) that:

In light of the particular circumstances of these cases, it is appropriate that their long-term stance in the UK should be protected by bringing them within the scope of the EU Settlement Scheme.

The Government was criticised, including by the Refugee and Migrant Children’s consortium, for the delay in clarifying the rights of people with derived rights of residence in the UK following Brexit.

The Government initially said in the Statement of Intent for the EUSS in June 2018 that ‘further details will be provided in due course on the new status available to them,’47 however the detail was not provided until March 2019.

The Home Affairs Select Committee report on the EUSS stated:

It should not have taken such a length of time for the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement on the rights of Zambrano carers under the Settlement Scheme and following Brexit.

We welcome the clarity the Government has now afford this group, but it is unacceptable that these citizens were left in limbo for so long.

[marcidevpal]

SSHD's - Original Intent

draft Immigration Rules for the EU Settlement Scheme

Published 21 June 2018

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ent-scheme

The draft Immigration Rules seek to reflect the basis for the EU Settlement Scheme set out in this Statement of Intent.

First quote,

Consistent with the draft text of the Withdrawal Agreement, the Immigration Rules for the scheme will enable EU citizens and their family members, and the family members of certain British citizens, to apply for leave under the 1971 Act on a basis which reflects their current EU law rights (e.g. under the Free Movement Directive and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)) and the more favourable provision which the UK has decided as a matter of domestic policy to make for them under the scheme.

Second quote,

We do not generally expect that applicants will need to consult the Immigration Rules for the scheme,

[marcidevpal]

SSHD's Original Intent - Continued

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

In June 2018, SSHD said they wanted EU citizens and family members of British citizens - not including Zambrano carers - to settle on the basis of their EU rights.

In March 2019, SSHD said the following

Changes relating to the EU Settlement Scheme

7.65 This Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules makes provision for the full opening of the EU Settlement Scheme. The Immigration Rules for the scheme contained in the new Appendix EU substituted by this Statement of Changes include the following changes to the scope of the scheme and the application process:

The scheme will also be open to others lawfully resident in the UK by virtue of a ‘derivative right’ to reside, based on wider EU law.

These are ‘Chen carers’ (the primary carer of a self-sufficient EEA citizen child) and ‘Ibrahim and Teixeira’ cases (a child of a former EEA citizen worker who is in education in the UK and their primary carer), which are protected by the draft Withdrawal Agreement with the EU in terms of their current rights, and ‘Zambrano carers’ (the primary carer of a British citizen child or dependent adult).

The Government has decided that, in light of the particular circumstances of these cases, it is appropriate that their long-term status in the UK should be protected by bringing them within the scope of the
EU Settlement Scheme;

SSHD couldn't have been any clearer. Ms Akinsaya was lawfully resident in the UK by virtue of her derivative right to reside, based on wider EU law.

The statement above proves their original intention was to cover all Zambrano carers (who meet the definition under the EEA Regulations), not just some.

To pretend otherwise, is beyond words.

[marcidevpal]

UPDATED Argument

To sum, on the question of the Home Office's original intent, there are three points

1.) In June 2018, they said they didn't want people to have to read the Immigration Rules to know their status. Two, they said they wanted applicants to rely on their existing rights under EU law.

2.) In March 2019, they said they wanted Zambrano carers, as defined according to EU law, to be granted settlement under the EU Settlement Scheme. Note, at no point did they say the scheme would be a Scheme of last resort, or that they would diverge from the EU rules.

3.) In December 2021, Mr Deller, representing the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that their intention was to rely on the EEA regulations. Moreover, Mr Deller admitted that if their understanding of the definition of a Zambrano carer was incorrect, their refusal of Ms Akinsaya's claim would be unlawful. They further agreed to update their guidance to reflect the Court of Appeal's decision that their definition of a 'Zambrano carer' was unlawful.

4.) In June 2022, SSHD claimed that after careful review, they would not apply the EEA Regulations and would instead go with their "original intention". They did not outline what that meant in any detail. SSHD again refused Ms Akinsaya's application.

5.) In the summer of 2022, SSHD continued to send refusal letters that referenced the term Zambrano carers and the EEA Regulations, despite publishing a letter stating they would not rely on the EEA regulations.

6.) As of October 2022, the guidance on Zambrano carers for the EU Settlement Scheme continues to reference a definition that has been found by the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal to be erroneous and, therefore, unlawful.

[omar1978]

Hello

i have applied for Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme in june 2021 and today I have received an update from them as they are asking for some documents.

1. Evidence that you are the primary carer of the British citizen xxxxxx. We require evidence such as school letters, NHS letters and, if applicable, details of other care/support arrangements in place for them. Please include any other evidence, confirming that you have been the primary carer of your sponsor. You can also include details of your day to day involvement in their life. You must also include evidence that the British citizen would be unable to remain in the UK if you were required to leave for an indefinite period.

2. Evidence of your child xxxx residence in the UK

3. Evidence of your residence in the UK

The evidence must cover the following period(s):

1. June 2020 – December 2020

2. the last six month period


letter also states

Home Office records show that you were granted leave to enter or remain in the UK on xxxxx until xxxxx under Appendix FM of the immigration rules. Thus breaking your five year continuous qualifying period as a ‘person with a Zambrano right to reside’.
If you wish to vary your application to one of pre-settled status, please state this in reply to this email. Pre-settled status is a secure status in the UK valid for five years.

i am confused here as if they think i am not eligible for the status why they asking for more documents?
Can i vary my application to one of pre-settled status?
I really appreciated your opinion.

[Whyworry]

Hello

i have applied for Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme in june 2021 and today I have received an update from them as they are asking for some documents.

1. Evidence that you are the primary carer of the British citizen xxxxxx. We require evidence such as school letters, NHS letters and, if applicable, details of other care/support arrangements in place for them. Please include any other evidence, confirming that you have been the primary carer of your sponsor. You can also include details of your day to day involvement in their life. You must also include evidence that the British citizen would be unable to remain in the UK if you were required to leave for an indefinite period.

2. Evidence of your child xxxx residence in the UK

3. Evidence of your residence in the UK

The evidence must cover the following period(s):

1. June 2020 – December 2020

2. the last six month period


letter also states

Home Office records show that you were granted leave to enter or remain in the UK on xxxxx until xxxxx under Appendix FM of the immigration rules. Thus breaking your five year continuous qualifying period as a ‘person with a Zambrano right to reside’.
If you wish to vary your application to one of pre-settled status, please state this in reply to this email. Pre-settled status is a secure status in the UK valid for five years.

i am confused here as if they think i am not eligible for the status why they asking for more documents?
Can i vary my application to one of pre-settled status?
I really appreciated your opinion.

i think you better leave your application as it is because if home office believe you are not qualify to be granted settled status they would grant you Pre-settled.

[marcidevpal]

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

ICESCR is an international human rights treaty adopted in 1966.

The UK ratified (agreed to follow) ICESCR in 1976.

The UN last examined how well the UK is implementing ICESCR and published its recommendations in July 2016.

The implementation of ICESCR is monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Around every five years the Committee reviews how well each state is putting into practice the rights in ICESCR.

ICESCR has one Optional Protocol.

This is an additional treaty that allows people to complain directly to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights if they believe their rights have been violated.

It can only be used when all domestic channels have been exhausted.

It has not been ratified by the UK.


https://humanrightstracker.com/en/un-treaty/icescr/

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ ... mic-social

[marcidevpal]

Ultimately, it comes down to one question

Can the SSHD rely on the EEA Regulations only to the extent doing so is beneficial to their aims?

Background

On 13 June 2022

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ary-carers

The Home Secretary has carefully considered the Court of Appeal judgment and has decided that she no longer wishes that definition in Appendix EU to reflect the scope of the 2016 Regulations (which have now been revoked) but wishes it to reflect the scope of those who, by the end of the transition period, had an EU law right to reside in the UK as a Zambrano primary carer, in line with the originally stated policy intention. She therefore intends to maintain the requirement in sub-paragraph (b) of the definition that the applicant did not, by the end of the transition period and during the relevant period relied upon, have leave to enter or remain in the UK (unless this was under the EUSS).

The "stated policy intention" is as follows

those who, by the end of the transition period, had an EU law right to reside in the UK as a Zambrano primary carer

BUT

did not, by the end of the transition period and during the relevant period relied upon, have leave to enter or remain in the UK (unless this was under the EUSS).

On the one hand, the UK can do whatever it wants, because it is no longer a member of the EU or the EEA.

On the other hand, the UK still ratified or acceded to numerous human rights treaties.

I don't see how the argument is not based on human rights considerations.

Again, as the UK left the EEA, that is all that is left.

The United Kingdom (UK) was a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 2020, following the coming into force of the 1992 EEA Agreement (as adjusted by a 1993 protocol).

Membership of the EEA is a consequence of membership of the European Union (EU).

[marcidevpal]

SSHD may argue that it has the right to decide laws on its own terms.

As a member of the United Nations and the Council of Europe, it has to abide by its conventions.

Your witness statement is very important. You must personally show how the SSHD violated your rights.

Any Zambrano carer who,

after Brexit and before 31 December 2020,

applied for leave to remain under another part of the Immigration Rules (such as Appendix FM or FP),

may want to clearly explain in their witness statement their reasons for doing so.

• Did you apply because you weren't sure of your status?

• Did you apply because the SSHD sent you a letter telling you to apply?

[marcidevpal]

More on human rights and Home Office refusals under the EU Settlement Scheme - despite long residence.

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner

While migrants are not inherently vulnerable, they can be vulnerable to human rights violations.

Migrants in an irregular situation tend to be disproportionately vulnerable to discrimination, exploitation and marginalization, often living and working in the shadows, afraid to complain, and denied their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Human rights violations against migrants can include a denial of civil and political rights such as arbitrary detention, torture, or a lack of due process, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as the rights to health, housing or education.

The denial of migrants’ rights is often closely linked to discriminatory laws and to deep-seated attitudes of prejudice or xenophobia.

Equality and non-discrimination:
The principle of non-discrimination prohibits distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference on the basis of a list of non-exhaustive grounds such as race, colour, descent, ethnic origin, sex, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion or belief, nationality, migration or residence status or other status.

States should address direct and indirect discrimination against and unequal treatment of people in laws, policies and practices, including by paying particular attention to the needs of migrants in vulnerable situations.

Participation and inclusion:
Everyone is entitled to active, free and meaningful participation in decisions that affect the enjoyment of their rights.

All people have the right to access information, in a language and format accessible to them, regarding the decision-making processes that affect their lives and well-being.

This means that migrants should be consulted and included in the development of relevant public policy.

Accountability and rule of law:
Everyone is entitled to claim and exercise their rights.

States should ensure transparency in the design and implementation of their policies and must ensure that rights-holders have access to mechanisms of redress and to enjoy effective remedies when human rights breaches occur.

The system governing migration should allow migrants full access to justice, including redress and remedies if they experience human rights violations.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/migration/abou ... man-rights

[marcidevpal]

Types of Appeals

https://immigrationappealsonline.justic ... k/IACFees/

https://www.gov.uk/immigration-asylum-tribunal

You can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) if the Home Office has decided to:

• refuse your protection claim (also known as ‘asylum claim’ or ‘humanitarian protection’)

• revoke your protection status

• refuse your human rights claim

• refuse you a residence document or deport you under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016

• revoke your British citizenship

• refuse or revoke your status, vary the length or condition of your stay, or deport you under the EU Settlement Scheme

• refuse or revoke your travel permit or family permit under the EU Settlement Scheme or restrict your rights to enter or leave the UK under those permits

• refuse or revoke your permit, or deport you if you’re a frontier worker

• refuse or revoke your leave, or deport you if you’re an S2 healthcare visit

=========================================
Immigration & Asylum Appeal Fees

Please select from one of the following options

I have received a decision to refuse my asylum, protection or human rights claim

I am in the UK and I received a refusal decision on:
- An application made before 20 October 2014 as Tier 4 migrant ; or
- An application made before 20 October 2014 as the family member of a Tier 4 migrant ; or
- An application made before 2 March 2015 as a Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 5 migrant ; or
- An application made before 2 March 2015 as the family member of a Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 5 migrant

I have received a refusal decision dated after 6 April 2015 on:
- An application for leave to enter ; or
- An application for entry clearance ; or
- An application for a certificate of entitlement under section 10 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 ; or
- An application for a variation of leave to enter or remain with the result that I have no leave to enter or remain

I have received an appealable decision on any other application type (from in or outside of the UK) dated before 6 April 2015

I have received an appealable decision on any other application and the decision is dated on or after 6 April 2015

[marcidevpal]

EU Settlement Scheme & Human Rights Claims

You can appeal your EU Settlement Scheme refusal on the basis of your human rights.

If you select "human rights" as the type of your appeal, you will see on the next page an option to select the following:

Please select one of the following. Your appeal is

• against a refusal to grant you protection.

• against a decision to revoke your protection status.

• against a refusal your human rights claim.

• Against a decision restricting your rights under the EEA right to free movement, EU Settlement Scheme, EEA family permit, EUSS travel permit, Frontier Worker or Healthcare Visitor Permit.

• against a decision depriving you of citizenship.

[Tina87]

where is the letter i can’t see any letters here?

Hello everyone,concerning the bundle FTt told home office to sent to me but instead, HO has gone and sent the document to my former lawyer whereas I didn't use the lawyer when I was appealing. My lawyer just called with regards to it and he has posted it to my address,my question is what should I do with the bundle the HO sent?