ERROR OF LAW: The judge accepts your entry into the UK was facilitated under Union law prior to the transition date. That faciliation entitles you to certain rights. I don't see where your judge addressed this issue.
ERROR OF LAW: Eventhough you made an application as a Zambrano carer, the Home Office had a responsibilty under the Withdrawal Agreement to work with you and help you re-apply as a family member.
========
So you provided the case law but no arguments around how the refusal violates your human rights? I don't see Celik mentioned in the list of cases.I note that I am concerned with an application made under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, further that the Appellant, so far as I can see has made no claim in respect of an asserted breach of the ECHR and in any event the SSHD have not considered such a claim.
========
ERROR OF LAW: That's not quite correct. It isn't the whole story. It seems your case is that you entered the UK as a family member of an EU national and then became the parent of British children.The Appellant’s case is that she is living in the UK with the Children as their sole carer.
========
But, I must apply the Rules under which the Appellant makes her application. My Section 55 assessment cannot augment Rules such as to confer compliance with the Rules. The documentary evidence as to the family permit, residence card and residence permit confirm to me the various ways in which the Appellant has had immigration status in the UK since October 2010. Her last such status I find to be the residence permit which I judge was obtained under Appendix FM of the Rules (as the Refusal Letter asserts) and was for the period 10th October 2019 to April 2022. She made the application under appeal on the August 2021 thus during the currency of that leave to remain.
ERROR OF LAW: You would have been eligible for permanent residence under your EU residence card after five years. The Withdrawal Agreement says that right can't be taken away.
ERROR OF LAW: You applied to EUSS as a Zambrano carer, but you could have applied as a family member. The judge didn't recognise that fact.
========
This issue is being addressed in the next Akinsaya judicial review. If you appeal and mention Akinsanya, you should win if she wins.But I find that the effect of the definition, as set out above - and as applicable in the Appellant’s circumstances - is that she falls outside of that definition because she had leave to remain under Appendix FM and so does not meet (b) of the definition.
--------
If I were you, I would appeal on two grounds. One relating to your EU residence, and second in relation to Akinsanya. But it's just a suggestion.