Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[marcidevpal]

SSHD v FARRICI

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 11812-2021

Celik is being used to decide hundreds, if not thousands, of appeals. The Home Office always wins. If the Court of Appeal rules against the Home Office in Celik, what will happen to all of these people? Will they automatically win their appeal? Will they received compensation? Who will contact them? This issue is massive and the media refuse to cover it. What a shame. The cases just go on and on and on.

The position in Celik [2022] UKUT 00220 has clarified the law in relation to these issues and the Secretary of State at its heart relied upon Celik as the basis to attack the Judge’s decision.

The appeal of the Secretary of State succeeds. The following decision is substituted the appeal of Mr Farrici is dismissed.

[krish147]

Dear Marcidevpal,

Thank you for the all valuable information you have been providing in this forum. great job... please keep continue until we are successful in this immigration battle.

[marcidevpal]

Greetings Krish147,

I am glad you find the posts useful! I know I do not always draw the right conclusions. My hope is simply to get people to think about the cases and their strategy in a deeper way. I am also enjoying the journey. I wish you and your family all the best in your path to settlement. ~ MDP

[marcidevpal]

Career Advancement

WARNING: The below scenario is purely hypothetical. Any alignment with real events is by chance and not meant to be a commentary on the actual workings of the Home Office.

Let's imagine you work for the Home Office. Your bonus depends on how many migrants you manage keep out of the UK. First, you ask government ministers to draft statutory instruments that make it hard for judges to let migrants reside. Then, you draft policy guidance that is confusing and makes it difficult for Home Office staff to approve applications by migrants. A serious problem exists with this strategy. The judges keep ruling that the statutory legal instruments and policy guidance are unlawful. What do you do now, to keep your bonus? There is at least one possible strategy you can employ. You tell the judge you agree to change the policy to remove the bad provisions. You wait a period of time, then quietly update that same policy again, inserting new unlawful paragraphs. By the time it gets to the judge via a judicial review, hundreds, if not thousands of people will have been refused. The barristers and solicitors have become tired of fighting the same fight, so you get away with your plan for even longer. Your bonus is secured for at least another two years....

[marcidevpal]

The Celik appeal & Zambrano carers

In case you missed this point earlier, it is worth repeating....

You may wonder, what does the Celik case have to do with me? A lot. maybe. Let's say you were refused. You need to file "submissions". Your submissions include your (appellant's) skeleton argument and witness statements. In your skeleton argument, the absolute least thing your should probably include is your "grounds for appeal". I also recommend adding sections for the case summary, refusal reasons, questions to be considered, relevant case law or legal framework, and conclusion. In your grounds for appeal, you can have many types of grounds. Here are three as an example. Ground 1: the refusal violates the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement. Ground 2: the refusal is not in accordance with the Immigration Rules (Appendix EU). Ground 3: the refusal violates or interferes with your human rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The President of the Upper Tribunal ruled in Celik that judges cannot consider your human rights unless the Home Office give the judge permission to consider your human rights. I know. Crazy, huh? So, if the Court of Appeal says the President was wrong in Celik, then hopefully the UK judges will consider your human rights on your appeal. By the way, the judge should anyway for two reasons. One, the UK is a member of the Council of Europe which oversees the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court on Human Rights. As a member, the UK judiciary cannot create case law that undermines the UK's responsibilities under the ECHR. The UK judges could theoretically ignore Celik today, if they wanted to. But, career advancement. Reason two. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (not the Council of Europe) passed the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter is based on the ECHR. The Charter requires human rights to be considered for EU nationals. But Zambrano carers are not EU nationals? I know. But the Dereci case said that even people with a derived right of residence in the EU should have their human rights considered, if there is a law passed that affects many people with a derived right to reside. Appendix EU is the example. The Withdrawal Agreement gives UK judges the ability to ignore any actions that violate the agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement says any case law passed prior to Brexit must be honored. UK judges can therefore ignore the Celik ruling today because Celik tells UK judges to ignore Dereci (and Dereci was passed before Brexit). I know I am repeating myself but I find people have to hear things multiple times for it to sink in, as it can be quite complex. Moreover, the scale of the injustice stops people from believing what I am saying, I suspect. But, I would always encourage you to seek legal advice....

[marcidevpal]

My prediction for the upcoming Celik decision

If the Court of Appeal does not reverse Celik, many, many people will consider an appeal to either the European Court of Human Rights, or find some way to get before the European Court of Justice. That could be embarrassing for the UK. But, the Court will want to give the Home Office something. So, I predict Celik will be decided in a way that gives EU type applicants under the EUSS the ability to have their human rights considered but not Zambrano carers. At this point, there are only a few thousand(?) or so Zambrano carers left. The chances of them appealing to the ECtHR are slim. They are not able to appeal to the ECJ/CJEU. Zambrano carers may be the sacrificial lamb.

[marcidevpal]

Why so many types of Zambrano carer exist today

In the early days, the Home Office created two groups - EU citizens and derivative holders. They treated derivative holders much worse than EU citizens. The EU said nothing. Then, it became EU citizens, Surinder Singh type migrants, and Zambrano carers. Zambrano carers were treated the worst. Next, the Home Office effectively created groups of Zambrano carers. The first group of Zambrano carers were the lucky ones who somehow got through in the early stages of the EUSS. The next group were the carers who never applied for leave to remain under Appendix FM. It seems we now have at least two groups of Zambrano carers who are waiting. One group are those who are refused for 'not having applied for Appendix FM'. The second group are those who did have Appendix FM on 31 December 2020. The question of the day is, "Why so many groups?" I believe it is because the Home Office never imagined people would come together and support each other the way they did. When Zambrano carers were "one group", people from all backgrounds shared their knowledge. And it worked, to some degree. Zambrano carers could file as litigants in person and save thousands on legal fees. Carers could get away with copy and paste arguments in their submissions before the Court. Now, it takes a specific amount of learning to help the remaining groups. Most people do not have the time to do the research. The remaining subgroups of Zambrano carer may have to accept that they will have to complain to the United Nations Human Rights Council and continue to fight all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.

[marcidevpal]

Article 6 Rights to an effective remedy and Article 8, ECHR

https://rm.coe.int/1680700aaf

We are now reaching a point at which the violation of Article 6 looms almost as large as the violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. To be clear, Article 6 is a direct complaint against the UK judiciary. If you do appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, they will ask you which articles have been violated. You may want to list Article 6 in addition to, Article 8 for the following reasons.

1.) The UK judges refuse to take into account relevant case law such as E.K. and Dereci. Moreover, the judges are not taking arguments submitted by litigants in person seriously:

172. An effective right: the parties to the proceedings have the right to present the observations which they regard as relevant to their case. This right can only be seen to be effective if the observations are actually “heard”, that is to say duly considered by the trial court. In other words, the “tribunal” has a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties (Kraska v. Switzerland, § 30; Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, § 59; Perez v. France [GC], § 80)

2.) The Brexit vote happened seven years ago. The laws were changed three years ago. These cases are still going years later:

279. The whole of the proceedings must be taken into account (König v. Germany, § 98 in fine).
 “Long periods during which the proceedings ... stagnate...” without any explanations being forthcoming are not acceptable (Beaumartin v. France, § 33).

(*You may also be tempted to argue that the length of time these appeals have been going amounts to torture, or a violation of Article 3, but that is harder to argue.)

3.) The Court of Appeal did not decide Akinsaya in a way that resolved the matter. Cases are ongoing.

4.) The Court of Appeal may decides Celik in a way that allows the Home Office and UK judges to ignore Article 8 on Zambrano appeals. This action would be irrational and discriminatory in my opinion. If that happens, Zambrano carers can use the Celik decision by the Court of Appeal as yet another example of an Article 6 violation in their appeal to the ECtHR.

[marcidevpal]

"Don't follow the ECtHR!", they scream.

Many people in the UK want the UK judges to stop following rulings by the European Court on Human Rights. The UK judges have already stopped following ECtHR rulings. It just happens to appellants who are not in the media spotlight such as Zambrano carers and litigants in person. If you file a paper appeal today as a litigant in person, and list 10 or so cases by the European Court of Human Rights, I am willing to bet the judge will simply ignore those cases in their decision. They will act as if you never mentioned the ECtHR rulings. That act is a clear violation of Article 6 under the ECHR. (The Home Office potentially violates Article 8 when they refuse you settlement.). I strongly suggest you consider paper hearings, for this reason. Should you appeal to the European Court on Human Rights, you will be able to easily show that the judge did not address the ECtHR case law. Otherwise, if you appear in person, you may have to get a copy of the transcript. And, they "lose" transcripts. Either way, I encourage you to raise Article 8 as a ground in your appeal (among others) and submit case law from the European Court on Human Rights.

[marcidevpal]

A clarification on UK Judges & ECHR

UK Judges can disregard case law from the judges at the European Court of Human Rights - but only under limited circumstances. Basically, if the ECtHR judges are dealing with a new and evolving topic, or if the decisions seem to contradict themselves, then UK judges can use their own judgement. Not so for immigration cases. Not so for residence permits. The ECtHR judges have been clear and consistent in their rulings on immigration and on residence permits. UK judges simply do not have a good excuse to ignore the rulings from the European Court. They're (recent?) tendency to ignore relevant case law should be made known to the Council of Europe and the ECtHR.

[marcidevpal]

The good fight, times 2

To be clear, EUSS applicants fight two battles. The first battle is against the Home Office over their refusal of your settlement application. You win that fight by finding cases similar to yours from the ECtHR, and arguing the ECtHR has ruled in favour of migrants like you. The second battle is against the UK judiciary. They refuse to take into account case law, or jurisprudence from the European Court on Human Rights. (On occasion, they may agree to consider your human rights. This raises another problem. The judge may focus on reasons you why you can’t return to your country rather than do the ‘balancing exercise'. The judge should really consider your wishes versus society’s best interests. You would ordinarily provide evidence to show you are a benefit to UK society. However, the judge may use your skills against you, tell you to return to your home country and deny your appeal). You win the fight against the UK judiciary by filing a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Council and appealing to the European Court on Human Rights. Ensure you show the court that you raised the case law from their judges before the UK judges. Also ensure the judge’s responses are included in your submission to the ECtHR. Perhaps you could show the ECtHR judges that the UK judges refused to apply ECtHR case law (or that they applied it incorrectly)?

[marcidevpal]

On "Human Rights Applications"

https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov. ... 07916-2021

A common complaint by UK judges is that people who want their human rights to be considered during EUSS appeals should make a separate 'human rights' application:

13. Finally, so far as it is suggested by [the appellant] that a decision or provision which excludes a human rights claim itself must breach [the appellant’s] ECHR rights, that is plainly unarguable. If [the appellant] wishes to have her human rights considered without relying on the [Home Office’s] consent, she simply needs to make a human rights application.

This position by the judges needs to be challenged for several reasons:

1.) It creates unnecessary delays and financial expense by people if they have to challenge their refusals twice. Once against the immigration rules and again due to the human rights violations. That is crazy.

2.) The United Kingdom signed up to the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe said that if you become a member, you have to agree to apply ECHR wherever relevant. It really is that simple. Therefore, a judge can't tell someone to "make a new application." The judge must conduct the balancing exercise of breach that person's rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

3.) There is no such thing as a 'human rights' application. If there is, the UK judiciary have failed appallingly in their duty to communicate their procedures to the public. If you google 'human rights application', do you see any such application? No. And you know why? Because there is no such thing. The Council of Europe does not want human rights to become a bounded concept. There is no strict line to say where human rights begins and ends. Nor will there ever be. When someone raises human rights, the judges are supposed to use their judgement to see if the ECtHR have accepted the situation as one which raises human rights concerns.

These points are so basic as to be obvious, yet so misunderstood by UK judges. However, it is good that the judges make their stance clear in their published decisions. It clarifies the terms of the dispute. I believe they should assess human rights as part of the EUSS appeal. They (strongly) believe otherwise. It would be helpful if they would support their assertions with reference to relevant provisions in the Human Rights Act and ECHR, rather than issue 'pronouncements'.

[marcidevpal]

A worrisome possibility

I just had a thought. What if the judges really mean to say, apply under Appendix FM when they say, "Make a human rights application." Do you realize what that means? It is absolutely huge. It would mean both the Home Office and the UK judges are trying to usher Zambrano carers into Appendix FM. That begs the question, Why are they both so focused on denying as many people as possible settlement under EUSS? That is very worrisome. I would not trust Appendix FM at all. But that is just me. Moreover, plenty of Zambrano carers have been accepted under EUSS. If we just look at the group who were resident in the UK prior to 31 December 2020: To force some under Appendix FM and allow others under Appendix EU makes absolutely no sense.

[marcidevpal]

Appendix FM & Appendix EU

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration ... ly-members

As of 30 January 2023, Appendix EU appears to be slowly becoming part of Appendix FM

GEN.1.1. This route is for those seeking to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family life with a person who is a British Citizen, is settled in the UK, is in the UK with limited leave as a refugee or person granted humanitarian protection (and the applicant cannot seek leave to enter or remain in the UK as their family member under Part 11 of these rules), is in the UK with limited leave under Appendix EU

If you were granted pre-settled status, it seems you would need to apply under Appendix FM when the settled status expires

(d) references to a person being “in the UK with limited leave under Appendix EU” mean an EEA national in the UK who holds valid limited leave to enter or remain granted under paragraph EU3 of Appendix EU to these Rules on the basis of meeting condition 1 in paragraph EU14 of that Appendix; and

However, a recent ruling said the requirement for pre-settled applicants to renew their visa was unlawful.

This fixation with shepherding people into Appendix FM is ill-advised. The bully culture which pervades the immigration system, from the charities, to the barristers and solicitors, to, of course, the Home Office, Judiciary - and EU due to their failure to implement safeguards, is unlikely to be a mere paper pushing exercise. At some point the bullies will not be able to refrain from targeting people who bear the mark of Appendix FM.

This push is ultimately dehumanizing. It trains judges, barristers, the Home Office staff, etc, to see people as family members who seek to remain based on human rights. It will stigmatize a group of people who are already vulnerable. It is bad policy.

[marcidevpal]

Raise E.K before the ECtHR?

The Withdrawal Agreement requires UK judges to consider case law passed by the European Court of Justice after Brexit. The European Court of Justice said Zambrano carers who lived in the UK after five years, should be granted permanent residence.

A recent court case said it was unlawful for the UK to require a further application for pre-settled applicants to gain settled status. By this logic, Zambrano carers (as defined by the EEA Regulations) who lived in the UK for five years prior to Brexit should not have to do anything more than apply for settlement under EUSS.

UK judges who tell Zambrano carers who achieved five years' residence prior to 31 December 2020 to make a human rights application (possible code word for Appendix FM), are ignoring their responsibilities to apply the case of E.K. These judges deny or invalidate rights already gained, that should have been recognized years ago. I find it curious that the tribunal has not published Zambrano decisions or commented on the E.K. case. I don't know how the ECtHR would respond to the refusal of the UK judges to apply the E.K. case. Ideally, Zambrano carers would raise the UK's refusal to apply relevant case law before the European Court of Justice. Either way, it would be immensely cynical of UK judges to not apply E.K. because they thought Zambrano carers had no avenue to challenge the omission.

[marcidevpal]

Summary

Impressions to date:

1.) The Home Office refused the majority of Zambrano carers under Appendix EU. They tell them to apply under Appendix FM.
2.) UK judges now refuse Appendix EU appeals by Zambrano carers. They effectively tell Zambrano carers to apply under Appendix FM. The actual language is "make a human rights application."
3.) Zambrano carers have no way to challenge these refusals before the European Court of Justice.
4.) If Zambrano carers appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, the UK will argue, "This Zambrano carer has the right to have their human rights considered by making an application under Appendix FM."
5.) One potential counter point before the ECtHR is that settlement under Appendix FM differs, and is more restrictive than, settlement under Appendix EU.
6.) Another point is that UK tribunals ignore the residence rights granted by the E.K. case, but the ECtHR may not find that point relevant.
7.) The final point relates to the substance of Article 8. Can a country create appendices in their Immigration Rules that do not allow or require human rights considerations? That means people will likely have to apply twice. That is crazy. It also fosters discrimination. People granted residence under the "normal rules" versus people who "had to rely on Article 8" will be treated differently.

[marcidevpal]

Zambrano carers & the WA (Ground 1 Appeals)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eut/with ... 21/adopted

Based on a superficial reading of the Withdrawal Agreement, you would conclude all UK based Zambrano carers have a right of appeal only via the The Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, not the WA.

The Withdrawal Agreement addresses appeal rights in Article 2, Safeguards and right of appeal -

The safeguards set out in Article 15 and Chapter VI of Directive 2004/38/EC shall apply in respect of any decision by the host State that restricts residence rights of the persons referred to in Article 10 of this Agreement.

Why? Because Article 10 does not include UK based Zambrano carers. Article 10 references the 2004 Directive. UK based Zambrano carers are not protected by the 2004 Directive.

Provision 3 of the UK's Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 is thought by many to give UK based Zambrano carers appeal rights.
See - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/202 ... tents/made

Side note: Provision 10 of the Citizens' Rights Appeals document requires judges to consider any matter raised in your grounds. So, if you raise the matter of the E.K. decision in your grounds, and the judge ignores it, the judge potentially violated the terms of the legislation.

Provision 8 of the Citizens' Rights Appeals document outlines the available grounds of appeal.

Ground 1
Ground 1 is about the Withdrawal Agreement. The decision must be shown to breach any right which the appellant has by virtue of Title II of Part 2 of the withdrawal agreement -

• Chapter 1, or

• Chapter 2, Articles 24(2) or 25(2)

Questions for you to answer:

• Do you have any rights by virtue of Chapter 1 of the WA?

• Do you have any rights by virtue of Chapter 2, Article 24(2)?

• What about Article 25(2) of Chapter 2?

Chapter 1 relates to people covered by

• TFEU: Articles 21, 45 or 49 and

• Directive 2004/38/EC: Article 6(1), points (a), (b) or (c) of Article 7(1), Article 7(3), Article 14, Article 16(1) or Article 17(1).

Chapter 1 RIGHTS RELATED TO RESIDENCE, RESIDENCE DOCUMENTS
Article 13.Residence rights
Article 14.Right of exit and of entry
Article 15.Right of permanent residence
Article 16.Accumulation of periods
Article 17.Status and changes
Article 18.Issuance of residence documents
Article 19.Issuance of residence documents during the transition period
Article 20.Restrictions of the rights of residence and entry
Article 21.Safeguards and right of appeal
Article 22.Related rights
Article 23.Equal treatment

Chapter 2 RIGHTS OF WORKERS AND SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
Article 24.Rights of workers
Article 25.Rights of self-employed persons

Regarding Chapter 1, TFEU Articles 21, 45 and 49 do not apply to UK based Zambrano carers. Directive 2004 /38/EC also does not apply to Zambrano carers. Moving on to Chapter 2, these rights do not apply to parents. Therefore, the first ground of appeal as outlined in the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 cannot apply to Zambrano carers.

HOWEVER, the Withdrawal Agreement does say the following in Article 18 Issuance of residence documents

1.(h) persons who, before the end of the transition period, hold a valid permanent residence document issued under Article 19 or 20 of Directive 2004/38/EC or hold a valid domestic immigration document conferring a permanent right to reside in the host State, shall have the right to exchange that document within the period referred to in point (b) of this paragraph for a new residence document upon application after a verification of their identity, a criminality and security check in accordance with point (p) of this paragraph and confirmation of their ongoing residence; such new residence documents shall be issued free of charge;

Zambrano carers who lived in the UK for five years prior to Brexit should have been issued a valid domestic immigration document conferring a permanent right to reside in the host State based on the E.K. case. The only reason they did not hold the document was due to error by the State. Therefore, this group of Zambrano carers are arguably covered by the Withdrawal Agreement.

Moreover, this section says

1.The host State may require Union citizens or United Kingdom nationals, their respective family members and other persons, who reside in its territory in accordance with the conditions set out in this Title, to apply for a new residence status which confers the rights under this Title and a document evidencing such status which may be in a digital form.

Zambrano carers would be an "other person". Thus, at least some Zambrano carers are directly covered by the Withdrawal Agreement.

[marcidevpal]

Judicial Review before UTIAC

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 2_save.pdf

You can apply to the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (UTIAC) for a judicial review to challenge a decision or other conduct by the

• Home Office or the

• First Tier Tribunal

You cannot apply to the UTIAC if you challenge

• the validity of the immigration rules or legislation

• a decision made by the UTIAC

Available grounds are that the decision or conduct was

• unlawful,

• illegal,

• irrational or

• unreasonable

Note: You must send or hand in your application form UTIAC1 so the tribunal receives it no later than 3 months after the date of the decision that you are challenging. A judicial review application has several stages. The first stage is the initial application (UTIAC1). The fee for the initial application is £154. Depending on whether your initial application is successful and what happens next, you will have to pay additional fees. If permission is granted the fee for a final hearing is £770.

[marcidevpal]

Judicial Review before the Admin Court

Apply to the Admin Court if you’re challenging

• the validity of the immigration rules or legislation

• a decision made by the UTIAC

A claim form must be filed no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose (CPR54.5(1).

The court may make any/all of the following orders:
(a) a mandatory order;
(b) a prohibiting order;
(c) a quashing order; or
(d) an injunction restraining a person from acting in any office in which he is not entitled to act.

Potential Grounds
1. The Home Office or UTIAC are irrational
2. The Home Office or UTIAC engaged in procedural impropriety
3. The refusal is disproportionate

[marcidevpal]

The Admin Court

In light of the news that both the Home Office and the Upper Tribunal are trying to coerce Zambrano carers into Appendix FM, it seems a judicial review to the Admin Court is warranted. A few questions to raise in an unlawfulness claim:

• Did UTIAC violate the ECHR and the Withdrawal Agreement when they refused to address or consider either ECtHR case law or the ECJ/CJEU case of Ms E.K. when deciding EUSS appeals?

• Did the Home Office act irrationally and in a discriminatory manner when drafting Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules?

• Was their collective refusal to apply ECJ case law and recognise Zambrano carers who would have acquired permanent residence prior to Brexit justifiable?

• Is either party rational in their refusal to carry out a human rights assessment?

• Were the Home Office wrong to refuse permission for the judge to conduct a human rights assessment during the EUSS appeal?

The Home Office can change the guidance as much as it wants. At the end of the day, many Zambrano carers rightfully earned settlement rights prior to Brexit. These rights cannot be ignored or taken away. It is time for the Courts and Home Office to recognise this fact.

[marcidevpal]

Judicial Overreach

Activist judges are identifiable by two activities:

1.) Instead of conducting a proper human rights balancing exercise, as required by the ECHR, they ask you, "What's wrong with you that you can't just return to your country?".

2.) Instead of agreeing to conduct a human rights balancing exercise on any case brought before them that raises Article 8 ECHR concerns, they tell you, "Just make an application under another part of the Immigration Rules."

Under either scenario, they overstep their boundaries. If the judges agree to do the human rights balancing exercise, they should do it in the way outlined in the agreement the UK signed. If the judges are responsible for a claim that resembles previous ECHR claims, they should conduct a human rights assessment. It really is that simple. Anything more is overreach by activist judges, in my opinion. People have to feel confident that the judiciary is there to uphold the law, not to remake society in its image.

[marcidevpal]

ECHR Violations, You v United Kingdom

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Below are my thoughts summarising potential ECHR violations you may want to use in an application to the European Court of Human Rights.

Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

• Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The hearings have gone on for too long and have not been impartial.

Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life

• Interference with your rights must be shown to be in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The push for you to be moved from Appendix EU to Appendix FM, is not justifiable. It is irrational for you to be under the EU Regulations for years, and be denied settlement under the European version of the Immigration Rules.

Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

• Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority. An effective remedy is not to be pushed into Appendix FM because Appendix FM is substantively different from Appendix EU. For example, under Appendix EU, you can be out of the UK for up to five years and retain your status. With Appendix FM, it is significantly less.

Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination

• The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. The UK discriminates against Zambrano carers who exercised their right to hold two Immigration statuses - a derivative residence card and leave to remain under Appendix FM - on 31 December 2020. Being told to apply under Appendix FM is an interference with private life. It is costly, lengthy and not guaranteed. It results in a less favorable outcome. The policy does not serve the public interest.

Article 17 Prohibition of abuse of rights

• Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention. The "State", or United Kingdom, is actively engaged in limiting the rights of EUSS applicants. I have looked at many tribunal decisions. No UTIAC judge explains how their decision serves the public interest - because it doesn't. Therefore, the actions by the Home Office and Tribunal violate Article 17.

Article 18 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights

• The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed. The UK has restricted Zambrano carers' ability to achieve settlement. Those restrictions are not applied to protect UK society's interests. If they were in UK society's interests, the Home Office and judges would explain how that is the case.

Apply here for the English form -
https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.asp ... 13_pointer

Here is the application form in other languages -
https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.asp ... ants/ol&c=

[marcidevpal]

The Home Office violates the Withdrawal Agreement (again)

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/indefinite- ... taken-away

The UK may alter the rights of pre-settled people in an unlawful way. Specifically, it seems the Home Office wants people who are on pre-settled status under Appendix EU, to be moved to Appendix FM when their settled status expires. Under Appendix FM, your indefinite leave will end if you stay outside the UK for 2 or more years at a time. Under Appendix EU, the EU Settlement Scheme, your indefinite leave will end if you stay outside the UK for 5 or more years at a time. Therefore, you are in a worse position under Appendix FM. You lose your acquired right to be out of the UK for up to 5 years at a time.

1.) https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-a ... -rights_en

Those protected by the Withdrawal Agreement who have not yet acquired permanent residence rights – if they have not lived in the host state for at least five years – will be fully protected by the Withdrawal Agreement, and will be able to continue residing in the host state and acquire permanent residence rights in the host state after accumulating five years of residence.

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

TITLE II RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS, CHAPTER 1 RIGHTS RELATED TO RESIDENCE, RESIDENCE DOCUMENTS, ARTICLE 15 Right of permanent residence
3. Once acquired, the right of permanent residence shall be lost only through absence from the host State for a period exceeding 5 consecutive years.

To sum, the UK cannot lawfully move people from Appendix EU into Appendix FM. The updated guidance is unlawful. It was (quietly) updated on 30 January 2023. I strongly suggest you look at the guidance every now and then (at least until the next election), because they keep changing it.

[marcidevpal]

Judicial Reviews, Admin Court

Below are four JR's I would like to see happen:

1.) JR against the UK's refusal to implement the E.K. case and give permanent residence to Zambrano carers under Appendix EU

2.) JR against the UK's decision not to consider Article 8 ECHR grounds of appeal on EUSS (already pending with Celik?)

3.) JR against the UK's forced reclassification of pre-settled Appendix EU people into Appendix FM

4.) JR against the UK's refusal to recognise (at least some) Zambrano carers are covered by the Withdrawal Agreement.

I don't believe UK barristers and solicitors will take on these cases but they should go ahead anyway.

[marcidevpal]

Applying to the ECHR Court (ECtHR)

If many people file, the Court is likely to put similar cases together, to save time. You do not need a solicitor to file the initial free application, although it is generally better. If the application is filled out correctly, and if the court agrees that your claim is "admissible", then it will ask the United Kingdom to respond. With the ECHR court, it isn't the Home Office that responds because your claim is against the entire country. It is another government department. Your case will then be allocated to either a single judge, a committee or a grand chamber. It will be assigned to either a one stage hearing or a two stage hearing.

Possibility A:
Phase 1 and 2 are combined.

Possibility B:
Phase 1 - The non contentious phase (12 weeks max). You and the UK try to reach a resolution.
Phase 2 - The contentious phase. You have not reached a compromise solution, so it goes to the judge(s).

You can request anonymity by filling out this form - https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/PD_anonymity_ENG.pdf

Your solicitor will probably be asked to communicate electronically with the ECHR court. They will need to follow these procedure rules - https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guid ... on_ENG.pdf

You can check to see how your case is progressing in the State of Proceedings database http://app.echr.coe.int/SOP/index.aspx?lg=en

The United Kingdom will try to argue your case should be considered "inadmissible". They will say you have other options such as Appendix FM. If many people file, it is less likely the court will agree with the UK. If you raise more grounds than just Article 8, it is also less likely the court will agree with the UK. You will need to explain and back up your reasons for accusing the UK of violating an Article.