Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[marcidevpal]

How goes it, @Askme?

I am sure you are enjoying your win . Victory must be sweet. Perhaps you can contact @Tina and offer some advice and/or support?

Cheers, MDP

[askme234]

How goes it, @Askme?

I am sure you are enjoying your win . Victory must be sweet. Perhaps you can contact @Tina and offer some advice and/or support?

Cheers, MDP

I am sure you are enjoying your win . Victory must be sweet. Perhaps you can contact @Tina and offer some advice and/or support?

Cheers, MDP

[/quote]


@ Marcidevpal Victory is sweet. However, the fight is still ongoing until the settled status is finally given.

@ Tina I'm not sure what you're appealing against i.e. Application based on EEA regulations ( Derivative Card right which is what my appeal was based on) or EUSS application.

But you want to pay attention to the followings and ensure your argument is tailored to
your appeal.

According to GHULAM BATOOL case- para 6 quoted below;

(5) EUSS


6) The appellants’ applications to the respondent

61. From the formal introduction of the EUSS on 30 March 2019 until 31
December 2020, EEA citizens and their family members could apply either
under the 2016 Regulations or under the EUSS.

The above seems to suggest that an individual can either apply for settlement or pre-ettle under EEA regulation or EUSS until 31 Dec 2020

When I first made my application for EUSS in 2019 there was no 'right of appeal' at the time and I was denied on the basis that at the time I still have leave to remain under FM.

To now know that you had that choice at the time and you were still denied shows you how manipulative Home office can be.

Thanks to the people on this forum (Snooky) - suggested at the time that an individual has a strong chance under EUSS if one holds Derivative right under EEA regulations before 31 Dec 2020 hence why I put in the application at the time hoping it would come out quick. Although he did warn that Home office would look for every excuse to refuse the application and we should be ready for appeal battle in the court which they did on the bases that- they were not satisfied that I am the primary carer of my British citizen son, the mother can look after him if I am required to leave and I have leave to remain at the time ( though expired in 2021 and I did not renew after). The appeal process finally ended in May 2023 with Upper tribunal allowing the appeal.

The reason why I gave the above background is because during the course of my appeal process, it has come to light that if an application was made under EEA regulations or EUSS before 31 Dec 2020 and you were refused and have a pending appeal, You would be covered under Union law which is part of the withdrawal agreement.

The below statutory instruments made this possible and You will find these Statutory instruments really useful in supporting your arguments to that effect.

The Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020


You want to make sure you emphasis that failure to give you settlement or pre-settle breach your right under the withdrawal agreement

You also want to mention that you met the criteria under EEA regulation 16 & 20 as it was before revocation. Home office is likely to argue that EEA 16 has been revoked which is what they did in James vs SSH and I argued against that.
The above statutory instruments show that it was preserved up until 31 Dec 2020.


If the application you're appealing against was made after Dec 31 Dec 2020, this is a very difficult argument to win because;

Home office will argue Zambrano does not exist anymore after 31 Dec 2020

if you have leave to remain when you made that application, they would say you're not qualify because of that

The judges tend to agree with home office based on the cases I have seen because Statutory instruments after 31 Dec 2020 removed EU laws at the relevant date. However, if you are able to argue that regulation 16 is preserved beyond 31 Dec 2020, that you're covered by the withdrawal agreement and the home office decision is not consistent with union law which is where Zambrano is derived from you will be giving yourself a good chance.

I hope the above helps

I will keep the forum posted on the outcome of my EUSS appeal. The application was made in 2021 or if Home office issue settle status before the appeal on the basis of the derivative residence as a Zambrano carer which I won the appeal last month.

[marcidevpal]

So one down, one to go? I really enjoyed reading your analysis. I have seen this dilemma, too.

Here are my thoughts:

The Home Office will argue that unless Zambrano carers applied for their derivative residence cards under the EEA Regulations before 31 December 2020, they can't now be recognised a Zambrano carer.

I see at least three rebuttals to the Home Office's argument:

1.) Their argument applies only to family permits. A Zambrano right is not a permit. It is a right which 'arises' when needed. By contrast, an EEA family permit does not arise. You must apply for it. That is why other EUSS people are struggling now. They did not apply for the permit before the 31st of December 2020. Zambrano carers only have to show it arose before 31 December 2020. In just this instance, it is perhaps better to be a Zambrano carer than a family member of an EU national, because you just have to show it arose - and you knew it arose.

2.) The very act of filing an application under Appendix EU as a 'Zambrano carer' before 31 December 2020, affirmed each Zambrano carer's (derivative) right to reside. The only outstanding question for the judge becomes whether that person's assertion matches the ECJ's reasoning or jurisprudence in the case law of Mr Zambrano.

3.) The third point is just a repeat of your point, and what your judge said. Although there are now a ridiculous number of statutory instruments, it seems the two mention above clear extend the EEA Regulations for people who are still going through the appeals process (at least for Zambrano carers, anyway).

I would really consider an appeal if the judge said a person was out of time. I would argue the judge made an error of law for the above reasons. Just my thoughts.

[marcidevpal]

Skeleton Argument - Questions to be considered & Submissions

Let's say you are a Zambrano carer who did NOT apply for a derivative residence card before 31 December 2020. You did, however, apply under Appendix EU as a Zambrano carer before the 31st.

In your skeleton argument under "Questions for the judge to consider", you could add

- Did the appellant's Zambrano right 'arise' before 31st December 2020?
- Does the appellant's Zambrano right continue today?

Then, in your "Submissions" section, you could say

1.) The appellant contends her Zambrano right arose in January 2016. In Akinsanya v SSHD before the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Underhill said, "[insert quote about Zambrano right waiting in the wings and how it arises]"...

2.) The appellant asserts her Zambrano right continues today. Statutory instrument [insert reference] says [insert quote] whereas statutory instrument [insert second reference] says [insert second quote]. You also want to mention relevant case law.

That approach should hopefully get around the judge's concern of whether or not you became and remain a Zambrano carer.

[Tina87]

How goes it, @Askme?

I am sure you are enjoying your win . Victory must be sweet. Perhaps you can contact @Tina and offer some advice and/or support?

Cheers, MDP

I am sure you are enjoying your win . Victory must be sweet. Perhaps you can contact @Tina and offer some advice and/or support?

Cheers, MDP

@ Marcidevpal Victory is sweet. However, the fight is still ongoing until the settled status is finally given.

@ Tina I'm not sure what you're appealing against i.e. Application based on EEA regulations ( Derivative Card right which is what my appeal was based on) or EUSS application.

But you want to pay attention to the followings and ensure your argument is tailored to
your appeal.

According to GHULAM BATOOL case- para 6 quoted below;

(5) EUSS


6) The appellants’ applications to the respondent

61. From the formal introduction of the EUSS on 30 March 2019 until 31
December 2020, EEA citizens and their family members could apply either
under the 2016 Regulations or under the EUSS.

The above seems to suggest that an individual can either apply for settlement or pre-ettle under EEA regulation or EUSS until 31 Dec 2020

When I first made my application for EUSS in 2019 there was no 'right of appeal' at the time and I was denied on the basis that at the time I still have leave to remain under FM.

To now know that you had that choice at the time and you were still denied shows you how manipulative Home office can be.

Thanks to the people on this forum (Snooky) - suggested at the time that an individual has a strong chance under EUSS if one holds Derivative right under EEA regulations before 31 Dec 2020 hence why I put in the application at the time hoping it would come out quick. Although he did warn that Home office would look for every excuse to refuse the application and we should be ready for appeal battle in the court which they did on the bases that- they were not satisfied that I am the primary carer of my British citizen son, the mother can look after him if I am required to leave and I have leave to remain at the time ( though expired in 2021 and I did not renew after). The appeal process finally ended in May 2023 with Upper tribunal allowing the appeal.

The reason why I gave the above background is because during the course of my appeal process, it has come to light that if an application was made under EEA regulations or EUSS before 31 Dec 2020 and you were refused and have a pending appeal, You would be covered under Union law which is part of the withdrawal agreement.

The below statutory instruments made this possible and You will find these Statutory instruments really useful in supporting your arguments to that effect.

The Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020


You want to make sure you emphasis that failure to give you settlement or pre-settle breach your right under the withdrawal agreement

You also want to mention that you met the criteria under EEA regulation 16 & 20 as it was before revocation. Home office is likely to argue that EEA 16 has been revoked which is what they did in James vs SSH and I argued against that.
The above statutory instruments show that it was preserved up until 31 Dec 2020.


If the application you're appealing against was made after Dec 31 Dec 2020, this is a very difficult argument to win because;

Home office will argue Zambrano does not exist anymore after 31 Dec 2020

if you have leave to remain when you made that application, they would say you're not qualify because of that

The judges tend to agree with home office based on the cases I have seen because Statutory instruments after 31 Dec 2020 removed EU laws at the relevant date. However, if you are able to argue that regulation 16 is preserved beyond 31 Dec 2020, that you're covered by the withdrawal agreement and the home office decision is not consistent with union law which is where Zambrano is derived from you will be giving yourself a good chance.

I hope the above helps

I will keep the forum posted on the outcome of my EUSS appeal. The application was made in 2021 or if Home office issue settle status before the appeal on the basis of the derivative residence as a Zambrano carer which I won the appeal last month.
[/quote]




Thanks so much.

[Sllarev]

Hello all.

Me and my husband were married after 2020 but we have proof of being in durable relationship for 2 years prior to 2020.

My husband has applied for Euss inside the UK.
His application was refused.
On the First Tribunal we won but home office challenged the decision.
First Tribunal did not gave permission to appeal but home office requested permission directly to Upper tribunal. That was last year August. Since then we had no updates until April.

We received a letter from the upper tribunal saying that our appeal is stayed until Halil Celik case is decided. I am wondering why we should wait for that as he has lost his appeals and he is the one that is appealing against HO but in our case is the opposite.

This is really frustrating and we are waiting so long.

If he loses his case does it mean we are going to automatically loose?

Thank you in advance

[marcidevpal]

Zambrano thread = non- EU parents of British children

Hiya @silarev,

Your question is really good! Are you and your husband Zambrano carers? I can understand why you would post it here since we talk about Celik and you are directly impacted by Celik. If you are not a Zambrano carer, your Celik exposure is different to how a Zambrano carer is likely to be impacted. Although, maybe not. All anyone can do is wait for the Court of Appeal's decision....

FYI: The moderators have asked people with non Zambrano questions to post under the thread called "EU settlement - Non EU family member - CoA and decision time". The last post was on Thu May 18, 2023 12:37 pm or create a new post.

Even if you aren't Zambrano carers, I think a Zambrano carer could have the same question. I can't tell if your husband applied before 31 December 2020 and on what basis he applied under EUSS? I also can't tell why you won at the First-tier Tribunal.

Perhaps the reason you won is relevant to what the Court of Appeal may say in the Celik decision. You and Celik may have made the same arguments with different outcomes. Or, the Court of Appeal may say things in their decision that are far reaching. In this situation, eventhough your arguments differ from Celiks, the concepts may all fall under the same umbrella.

One thing is certain. Whatever the outcome, Celik's appeal is almost certainly going to create a rush of legal action.

Whether or not you automatically lose will depend on how closely your situation is to Celik's. If I were you, I would
- carefully read the reasoning by your First-tier tribunal judge.
- carefully read President's reasoning in the Celik case.
- identify the similarities and differences between the two.

When the Celik decision is eventually published, you can see what if any points are likely to be relevant to your appeal. Others may have suggestions, too.

[marcidevpal]

Lord Wood of Anfield, Acting Chair of the European Affairs Committee

Can someone explain why Zambrano carers are left out of this letter and not mentioned once?

25 May 2023

Dear Home Secretary,

Rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU under the Withdrawal
Agreement

.................

Thank you for your consideration of this letter. We ask you to reply by 26 June 2023.

https://committees.parliament.uk/public ... 1/default/

[marcidevpal]

Citizens’ Rights Inquiry (2021)

Are Zambrano carers not a vulnerable group?

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/1 ... ns-rights/

The European Affairs Committee is holding a short inquiry into Citizens’ Rights issues, covering both UK nationals living in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK.

The inquiry takes place in the context of the forthcoming deadline for the UK’s EU Settlement Scheme and equivalent deadlines in certain EU member states, and will focus in particular on the issues faced by vulnerable groups on both sides of the Channel.

Contact us
Email: hleuroaffairs@parliament.uk
Phone: 020 7219 6083
Address: European Affairs Committee, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW

[marcidevpal]

Follow up Citizens' Rights 2023

Non-inquiry session. This inquiry is no longer accepting evidence. The deadline for submissions was Thursday 4 May 2023.

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/ ... e-session/

Committee to hold a follow up evidence session on Citizens’ Rights

At 4pm on Tuesday 16 May, the European Affairs Committee will hear an update on how the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU are being upheld post-Brexit from representatives of three organisations:

Dr Kathryn Chamberlain, Chief Executive, Independent Monitoring Authority (IMA)
Jane Golding OBE, Co-Chair, British in Europe
Monique Hawkins, Interim Co-CEO and Policy and Research Officer, The3million

Background

The European Affairs Committee is holding a one-off evidence session as part of a piece of follow up work to the Citizens’ Rights Inquiry that was undertaken in 2021. This inquiry considered the relevant provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and EU, and the mechanisms by which the UK and EU Member States have given effect to them. The report highlighted outstanding issues to be resolved regarding both the UK’s EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) and the systems operated by EU Member States.

This evidence session, together with letters submitted to the Committee by individuals and organisations who gave written or oral evidence for the original inquiry, will form the basis for a substantial letter to the Government.

Watch the evidence session on Parliamentlive.tv here - https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2 ... 0bf508b04f

[marcidevpal]

Plan B if your appeals fail

If you lose your EUSS appeals....

A.) You might want to apply to Appendix FM on the 5 or 10 year route. It costs thousands. In theory, you could apply for a fee waiver.

B.) You may also want to look into the settlement based on 10 years residence.

C.) You may also want to consider moving to another country. For example, last week, Germany passed a new law. If accepted, you get permanent residence after 3 years. You don't have to have a degree as long as you have either work experience or have potential (see the points system). You don't necessarily have to know German, as long as you know English. They are also working on passing a new law to allow dual citizenship.

There are other countries that are making similar offers, too. The point is that if you start to feel stressed about your appeal, you may want to take some of that energy and use it to investigate moving to another country, particularly one in the EU. Who knows, maybe by the time you become an EU citizen or permanent resident, the UK will rejoin the EU in some fashion? Anyway, why give your skills and talent to a country that doesn't respect what you have to offer?

[chopwell20]

Hiya NAD!

If you have some time, can you contact Tina and share some further insights into how you won?

Hi all,

apology for taking long to come back to read this but i am more than welcome to provide all information i gathered. please feel free to contact . All the best.

[Premo85]

Plan B if your appeals fail

If you lose your EUSS appeals....

A.) You might want to apply to Appendix FM on the 5 or 10 year route. It costs thousands. In theory, you could apply for a fee waiver.

B.) You may also want to look into the settlement based on 10 years residence.

C.) You may also want to consider moving to another country. For example, last week, Germany passed a new law. If accepted, you get permanent residence after 3 years. You don't have to have a degree as long as you have either work experience or have potential (see the points system). You don't necessarily have to know German, as long as you know English. They are also working on passing a new law to allow dual citizenship.

There are other countries that are making similar offers, too. The point is that if you start to feel stressed about your appeal, you may want to take some of that energy and use it to investigate moving to another country, particularly one in the EU. Who knows, maybe by the time you become an EU citizen or permanent resident, the UK will rejoin the EU in some fashion? Anyway, why give your skills and talent to a country that doesn't respect what you have to offer?

@Marcidevpal I have made an appeal to the FTT on my refusal still waiting for home office bundle and skeleton argument. I have no leave to remain at before I made zambrano application...I still don't have leave to remain Now.
But I'm tempted to apply for Appendix Fm at this material moment and still push and wait for the ongoing appeal.
Do you think it's a good decision to apply for Appendix fm or I should wait for the appeal ....because I'm thinking they might use that against me that I have applied for Appendix fm so now I don't qualify for zambrano.
Just your thought. " I still have no leave to remain"

[chopwell20]

Hiya NAD!

If you have some time, can you contact Tina and share some further insights into how you won?

Hi all,

apology for taking long to come back to read this but i am more than welcome to provide all information i gathered. please feel free to contact . All the best.

Hello,

I have an update on my case. In early March, my appeal was allowed. However, when I contacted the Home Office, they informed me that HO had applied for permission to appeal, and I was advised to contact the tribunal for further updates on the case. Surprisingly, when I reached out to the tribunal after 60 days, they had no record of the permission to appeal being submitted.

On 3rd March, my appeal was allowed, and I subsequently contacted the tribunal regarding the matter. They responded in writing, stating that after 75 days from the determination, they still had no record of the permission to appeal being submitted to them. However, on 26th June, I suddenly received an email notifying me that the permission to appeal application had been submitted. The tribunal letter I received was dated 26th June, but the receipt was backdated to 20th March.

I am quite confused about this situation, as there was no record of the permission to appeal even after 75 days, and now, after 115 days, a backdated acknowledgment of receipt has been emailed to me.

I am lost for the moment now... will put my head back to seek more info later here.

Good night.

[marcidevpal]

Hey Premo,

Can you please summarise the refusal reasons in the letter the Home Office sent you?

I don't think you should take any action until you see their skeleton argument.

I agree that if you apply for Appendix FM they will try to use it against you - eventhough the Court of Appeal's decision in Akinsanya made it clear it shouldn't matter.

Right now, your case is quite straightforward for the judge. Did you become a Zambrano carer before 31 December 2020? If so, I don't see how they can refuse you.

Also, I think you should learn your rights. Mostyn J of the Upper Tribunal talked about statutory instruments that protect the rights of Zambrano carers while their appeals are pending.

[marcidevpal]

Hi NAD,

I am really sorry about the new appeal. It sounds like the court made a mistake.

Your main goal at this point is perhaps to find out if the permission was successful at either the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal. Then, try to find out what the HO's grounds were. The grounds would be that an error of law was committed by your judge.

Specifically,

- Did the HO ask the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal? If so, did they say yes? If they said yes, what are the grounds? What errors of law did your judge potentially make?

- Did the Home Office ask the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal? Did they say yes? If they said yes, what are the grounds? What errors of law do they think your judge may have made?

Even if permission to appeal is granted, you will probably need (or want) to wait for outcomes of the Celik case before the Court of Appeal and/or the new Akinsanya judicial review.

[marcidevpal]

Celik & the Supreme Court??

Celik's case before the Court of Appeal is on 4th July 2023. Many, many people (perhaps thousands) are relying on this case. Not just Zambrano carers.

The Court's arguments in their decision will be scrutinised heavily. I don't know who is paying Celik's fees, but it seems like there is a possibility this case could go to the Supreme Court.

If your case relies on Celik, and it does go to the Supreme Court, you may not have a resolution for at least a year. Also, the new Akinsanya judicial review is just getting started...

[Premo85]

Hey Premo,

Can you please summarise the refusal reasons in the letter the Home Office sent you?

I don't think you should take any action until you see their skeleton argument.

I agree that if you apply for Appendix FM they will try to use it against you - eventhough the Court of Appeal's decision in Akinsanya made it clear it shouldn't matter.

Right now, your case is quite straightforward for the judge. Did you become a Zambrano carer before 31 December 2020? If so, I don't see how they can refuse you.

Also, I think you should learn your rights. Mostyn J of the Upper Tribunal talked about statutory instruments that protect the rights of Zambrano carers while their appeals are pending.

HO refused my application....they said if I had applied for Appendix FM before 31 December I would have succeeded...even though they accepted that during the specified date I did not have leave to remain under any route.
Yes my child was born in June 2020 and had her British passport in August 2020. So yes I became zambrano carer before the specified date..

[Premo85]

Hey Premo,

Can you please summarise the refusal reasons in the letter the Home Office sent you?

I don't think you should take any action until you see their skeleton argument.

I agree that if you apply for Appendix FM they will try to use it against you - eventhough the Court of Appeal's decision in Akinsanya made it clear it shouldn't matter.

Right now, your case is quite straightforward for the judge. Did you become a Zambrano carer before 31 December 2020? If so, I don't see how they can refuse you.

Also, I think you should learn your rights. Mostyn J of the Upper Tribunal talked about statutory instruments that protect the rights of Zambrano carers while their appeals are pending.

HO refused my application....they said if I had applied for Appendix FM before 31 December I would have succeeded...even though they accepted that during the specified date I did not have leave to remain under any route.
Yes my child was born in June 2020 and had her British passport in August 2020. So yes I became zambrano carer before the specified date..

I made the appeal on 21st February 2023, still waiting on HO no update from HO since. I know very well I have a good chance. But sometimes I'm tempted to apply for Appendix fm and just move on. Not sure if I can even get hearing date THIS YEAR due to lackadaisical attitude from HO.

[marcidevpal]

HO refused my application....they said if I had applied for Appendix FM before 31 December I would have succeeded...even though they accepted that during the specified date I did not have leave to remain under any route.

Hey,

You seem to have such a strong case!! Moreover, it seems the new Akinsanya judicial review is going to deal with exactly your refusal reason. You don't have to fight their unreasonable decision. You just have to make the judge aware of what happens in the Akinsany judicial review. I suspect your judge will want to wait until this JR finishes, anyway.

Even if you apply for Appendix FM today, it will probably take them months to process it. By that time, the Akinsanya hearing may have occurred.

I would encourage you to make a list of all the problems you are facing due to the delay. You should have a Certificate of Application that allows you to work, rent a place, etc. If it is just mentally draining, you may want to hang in there like everyone else.

Hope that helps

[marcidevpal]

Hi again NAD,

Regarding your point about the Court taking so long to confirm the Home Office had applied for permission to appeal.....

I suspect the Court just sat on the permission to appeal because they knew it would be better for everyone to wait for Celik. I wouldn't take it too personally.

[marcidevpal]

Refused EUSS because you "could have" applied for Appendix FM?

Hackney Law Centre offers the following argument for your admin review or appeal application:

Potential grounds of challenge to the revised December 2022 Guidance:

Challenge to the lawfulness of the revised Guidance, on the basis that it is inconsistent with the immigration rules and unlawfully mis-states the relevant tests under the rules.

The definition of ‘a person with a Zambrano right to reside’ in Appendix EU incorporates a self-contained and exhaustive list of categories of persons who are excluded from meeting the definition on account of their immigration status. The Guidance, however, instructs caseworkers to add an additional exclusion not stated in the rules, i.e. to refuse leave to someone who meets both the conditions above but “is likely to qualify for Appendix FM leave” because “there is a realistic prospect that they would do so (or would have done so).”

The Guidance is contrary to the decision of the Administrative Court in Akinsanya at paragraphs 62-63 to the effect that sections of the previous Guidance which similarly excluded those who did not have Appendix FM leave but could have applied for it were unlawful. The High Court’s findings on this point were not overturned on appeal.

[marcidevpal]

Impact Assessments, Procedural Impropriety & Celik

Over 90% of Zambrano carers were refused under EUSS.

The government is supposed to do impact assessments to bring attention to how particular groups can be negatively impact by new legislation.

They are supposed to explain why it is in the public interest to continue with the new rules.

MPs in the House of Commons are also supposed to challenge the assessment.

To not do an impact assessment is an error of law known as "procedural impropriety." The lack of consideration adds support to the idea that a policy is discriminatory.

Moreover, the lack of an assessment makes Celik's case even stronger. If people like Celik were not considered during the impact assessment, it is even more important for the judges to be able to consider their human rights, in my opinion.

Below is the link for all of the impact assessments for immigration.

See the list here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ion-policy

3 Examples you may want to look at for references to Zambrano carers:

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Ref: HO0384
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... signed.odt

EU Settlement Scheme: updated analysis
Ref: HO0333
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/201 ... 074_en.pdf

EU Settlement Scheme
Ref: HO0316
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/201 ... 116_en.pdf

[marcidevpal]

Said again, simply

Impact assessments are meant to stop the government from introducing cruel, inhumane rules and laws.

The assessment looks at the IMPACT the proposed rule change would have on people, particularly the most vulnerable or marginalised.

When an impact assessment is not done, or ignores a vulnerable group of people (Zambrano carers), it exposes those people to unfair, unlawful and poor treatment - or discrimination.

The only remedy at that point is for the judiciary to stop the practice. The tools the judiciary uses are primarily the human rights laws (although not the only ones).

President Lane in the Celik case said judges are NOT allowed to consider human rights unless the Home Office gives them permission....

When no impact assessment is done, or when it is done but ignores groups of people - and the judges are forbidden from considering your human rights - the outcome is mass discrimination.

That is what we are seeing with Celik. The impact assessment didn't take into account people who would have difficulties getting into the UK due to COVID related travel restrictions. The assessment also didn't take into account Zambrano carers. The only questions are 1.) Was it done deliberately? 2.) What are the judges going to do about it?

[chopwell20]

Hi again NAD,

Regarding your point about the Court taking so long to confirm the Home Office had applied for permission to appeal.....

I suspect the Court just sat on the permission to appeal because they knew it would be better for everyone to wait for Celik. I wouldn't take it too personally.

Hi Marcidevpal,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to provide some additional information regarding my previous communication concerning the response I received from the court.

Upon further clarification, I must correct a misstatement in my previous correspondence. The court's response to my inquiry regarding the permission to appeal did not take an extended period of time. In fact, I was initially informed over the phone that no permission to appeal had been submitted. However, in order to obtain a written confirmation, I subsequently submitted a request for my records. It is worth noting that this request was made 105 days after the initial communication. After a waiting period of 10 days, totalling 115 days from the original communication, I received a response from the court, which explicitly stated that they had no record of permission to appeal.

My primary concern, which I would like to emphasize, is not the length of time it took to receive a response, but rather the discrepancy between the court's initial statement over the phone and the subsequent written confirmation I received. Specifically, I find it puzzling that the court did not have any record of the permission to appeal in their system, yet they issued a receipt of acknowledgment at a later date.

I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous message, and I wanted to ensure that this clarification is conveyed in a professional and clear manner. I appreciate your understanding and attention to this matter.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely, NAD