Zambrano Settled Status EU settlement scheme Paper Application Form - NEW

[marcidevpal]

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.

========

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.

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.

========

The Appellant’s case is that she is living in the UK with the Children as their sole carer.

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.

========

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.

========

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.

This issue is being addressed in the next Akinsaya judicial review. If you appeal and mention Akinsanya, you should win if she wins.

--------

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.

[marcidevpal]

Errors of law - Example

1.) FtT judge X did not consider all the relevant facts and circumstances of my application. The judge failed to recognise the rights afforded to me under the Withdrawal Agreement as the family member of an EU citizen. The rights include the following:

a.) The right to permanent residence after five years

b.) The right to help from the Home Office in making an application. The Home Office never considered that I was eligible under the EU rules.

c.) The right to be considered a 'family member' as defined by Article 9 and within scope of Article 10

2.) Article 18(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement entitles me to challenge the legality of the Immigration Rules (Appendix EU). The legality of the Home Office's position on treating Appendix FM as a disqualifier is pending judicial review in the case of Akinsanya v SSHD. It is premature to conclude the Home Office's position is lawful.

3.) The FtT judge did not conduct a balancing exercise under Article 8 ECHR or consider if the Home Office's refusal was proportionate under Article 18(1)(r) of the Withdrawal Agreement. As a UK resident since 2010, it is disproportionate to expect me to remain under Appendix FM until 20XX.

4.) The FtT judge did not engage with my arguments around discrimination. Over 90% of Zambrano carers were refused settlement. No other category came close to this refusal rate.

5.) The purpose of Article 18 is to establish if I met the residence requriments based on meeting the conditions of Title 2. The judge did not consider if I met the conditions.

[marcidevpal]

TITLE II - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

CHAPTER 1 - RIGHTS RELATED TO RESIDENCE, RESIDENCE DOCUMENTS

ARTICLE 15 - Right of permanent residence

1. Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals, and their respective family members, who have resided legally in the host State in accordance with Union law for a continuous period of 5 years or for the period specified in Article 17 of Directive 2004/38/EC, shall have the right to reside permanently in the host State under the conditions set out in Articles 16, 17 and 18 of Directive 2004/38/EC.

You see, @Wishfulgirl? You earned the right to reside permanently in the UK after five years.

You meet the definition of a 'family member' because you had a family member residence card.

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

[Wishfulgirl]

ERROR OF LAW: The judge accepts your entry into the UK was facilitated under Union law prior to the transition date. I don't see where your judge addressed this issue.

All you see there is what has been decided. Solely Zambrano nothing else.

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.

Exactly.
========

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.

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

I did.
========

The Appellant’s case is that she is living in the UK with the Children as their sole carer.

ERROR OF LAW: That's not quite correct. 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.

========

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.

——- This is what I was saying , this was not acknowledged. I came to the conclusion the judge focused the appeal reason and home office refusal decision around Zambrano, Only acknowledging that I am the children’s sole carer. Everything else seemed to have been disregarded. It’s the same way home office did not acknowledged I was a person with retained rights when I made the Zambrano application despite the evidence provided.

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.

Exactly.
========

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.

This issue is being addressed in the next Akinsaya judicial review. If you appeal and mention Akinsanya, you should win if she wins.

It’s all still very confusing to me, My head is spinning but I refuse to give up now. Am I able to appeal to the Upper Tribunal? Will the Upper skip over my argument regarding how I entered the UK and my retained rights like the court of appeal did. Will they say well, you didn’t make an application for retained rights so you cannot argue that similar to what the First Tier stated ( Regarding not having a derivatives residence card ) The case is a Zambrano case, I get the feeling the judge was insinuated I can continue under appendix FM. ( I may have interpreted that wrong ) Should I make an application for retained rights under the settlement scheme, wait for Home Office to reject such application (They obviously will, since the EU national died in 2015 ) then appeal and argue the retained rights case then.

I felt I made multiple arguments and nothing was acknowledged very exhausting.

[marcidevpal]

TITLE II - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 1 - RIGHTS RELATED TO RESIDENCE, RESIDENCE DOCUMENTS
ARTICLE 13 - Residence rights

4. The host State may not impose any limitations or conditions for obtaining, retaining or losing
residence rights on the persons referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, other than those provided for in
this Title. There shall be no discretion in applying the limitations and conditions provided for in this
Title, other than in favour of the person concerned.

The UK is imposing additional conditions on you. The additional condition is that you should not hold leave to remain under Appendix FM at the time you apply.

As the family member of an EU national, they are not allowed to do that - as per the Withdrawal Agreement.

[marcidevpal]

It’s all still very confusing to me, My head is spinning but I refuse to give up now. Am I able to appeal to the Upper Tribunal? Will the Upper skip over my argument regarding how I entered the UK and my retained rights like the court of appeal did. Will they say well, you didn’t make an application for retained rights so you cannot argue that similar to what the First Tier stated ( Regarding not having a derivatives residence card ) The case is a Zambrano case, I get the feeling the judge was insinuated I can continue under appendix FM. ( I may have interpreted that wrong ) Should I make an application for retained rights under the settlement scheme, wait for Home Office to reject such application (They obviously will, since the EU national died in 2015 ) then appeal and argue the retained rights case then.

I felt I made multiple arguments and nothing was acknowledged very exhausting.

I think your judge wanted to help you, but I don't think your judge understands the Withdrawal Agreement. The First-tier Tribunal judges have so many different types of cases.

First you ask the First-tier Tribunal for permission to appeal. A different FtT judge will consider your reasons why you want to appeal. If that judge says no, you ask the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal.

Yes, you are right. You could technically make a new application as a family member of an EU national. I don't know if that will make things more confusing right now.

[marcidevpal]

TITLE II - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 1 - RIGHTS RELATED TO RESIDENCE, RESIDENCE DOCUMENTS
ARTICLE 13 - Residence rights

3. Family members who are neither Union citizens nor United Kingdom nationals shall have the
right to reside in the host State under Article 21 TFEU and as set out in Article 6(2), Article 7(2),
Article 12(2) or (3), Article 13(2), Article 14, Article 16(2), Article 17(3) or (4) or Article 18 of
Directive 2004/38/EC, subject to the limitations and conditions set out in those provisions.

Another point missed by the judge:

Because you are a family member, you are protected by Article 21 of the TFEU. Zambrano carers are protected by Article 20 TFEU.

You also qualify for the rights awarded under Directive 2004/38/EC. Zambrano carers are not covered by the 2004 Directive.

[marcidevpal]

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.

Your appeal grounds (if you appeal) should state clearly that you acquired the right of permanent residence in XXXX year and that it has not been lost because you have not left the UK.

Therefore, the Home Office had a responsibility to grant you settled status.

[marcidevpal]

TITLE II - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 1 - RIGHTS RELATED TO RESIDENCE, RESIDENCE DOCUMENTS
ARTICLE 18 - Issuance of residence documents

(1)(o) the competent authorities of the host State shall help the applicants to prove their eligibility and to avoid any errors or omissions in their applications; they shall give the applicants the opportunity to furnish supplementary evidence and to correct any deficiencies, errors or omissions;

You see, @Wishfulgirl? The Withdrawal Agreement requires the Home Office to help you fill out the right form or to provide further information.

Also, your judge seemed to blame you for not providing enough information. I don't think the judge was aware that the Home Office had a responsibility to help you....

[marcidevpal]

The facts are:

1. You achieved five years as either a family member or a “family member who has retained the right of residence”

2. Those five years entitle you to permanent residence under Article 21 TFEU and the 2004 Directive.

3. Once those 5 years are achieved, the right to residence can't be lost - unless you leave the UK for five years.

4. The Home Office had a responsibility to help you "correct" your application

[marcidevpal]

You may want to do the following:

First, fill out the permission to appeal form with your details.

Then, open a document in Microsoft Word, Google Docs, etc.

Write Errors of Law at the top. (That way the judge knows you know what you are doing.)

Make a list of all of the errors of law. Number each point. Include quotes from the Withdrawal Agreement.

Send the form to the First-tier Tribunal and wait for their decision.

[marcidevpal]

The Human Rights Argument

Several months ago, I suggested you argue that the refusal violates your human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The reason I said to raise Article 8, is because I wanted the judge to do a balancing exercise.

At the time, I hadn't realised Zambrano carers were covered by the Withdrawal Agreement.

Today, I understand Zambrano carers are - at the very least - covered by Article 18 of the WA.

Article 18 entitles people to have their judge consider if the refusal was 'disproportionate'.

This step is basically the same as a balancing exercise.

So, when you get your appeal decision, look to see if the judge considers whether or not the refusal was disproportionate, in your circumstances. If not, the judge arguably made an error of law.

[Wishfulgirl]

TITLE II - RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 1 - RIGHTS RELATED TO RESIDENCE, RESIDENCE DOCUMENTS
ARTICLE 18 - Issuance of residence documents

(1)(o) the competent authorities of the host State shall help the applicants to prove their eligibility and to avoid any errors or omissions in their applications; they shall give the applicants the opportunity to furnish supplementary evidence and to correct any deficiencies, errors or omissions;

You see, @Wishfulgirl? The Withdrawal Agreement requires the Home Office to help you fill out the right form or to provide further information.

Also, your judge seemed to blame you for not providing enough information. I don't think the judge was aware that the Home Office had a responsibility to help you....

Thank you so much Marcidevpal,

I really appreciate your insightful information on here. Honestly if it wasn’t for you, idk how I would even draft my skeleton argument in the first place to make an appeal. Thank you again. I kept reading the decision and all I could think of is, is that it?

I made a point from you in my argument but as you can see it was never acknowledged in the decision letter.

“ The appellant contends she is a family member who has retained the right of residence. She became eligible for permanent residence in July 2016. Per the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, she retains this right. The appellant confirmed to the respondent she had remained a continuous resident in the UK. Rights acquired before 31 December 2020 are not extinguished by the Withdrawal Agreement. The appellant has spent over 10 years lawfully resident in the UK. The respondent had a responsibility under section 18 (r) and (o) to help the appellant qualify for settlement. The respondent failed to help the appellant prove her eligibility for permanent residence.”

I will gather the necessary information so I can appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Again, Thank you Marcidevpal for your daily updates on this forum even when no one responds alot are still reading like myself and the information is very helpful to us all.

[marcidevpal]

You are most welcome! If anyone should keep going, it's you, in my opinion. Also, abandoning your appeal at this point looks kindof bad, in my opinion. That paragraph you found is a smoking gun! Way to go! See? You're a natural. Your judge kindof ignored it, no?

I thought the judges were comfortable with the Withdrawal Agreement. I don't think so anymore. Perhaps they are overworked. I notice he didn't mention the words Withdrawal Agreement much, if at all. And that's key to your case.

Anyway, unfortunately, your next filing will go to another First-tier Tribunal judge. I think you need to make it crystal clear and in simple language why the Home Office did not follow the WA. It should be much easier this time...

Possible sample template (Note: I just did this quickly to give you an idea)

1. FACTS

a.) I entered the UK on an XX visa
b.) I held an EU family permit from YYYY to YYYY
c.) I achieved the right of permanent residence on YYYY
d.) I gave birth to my children in YYYY, YYYY, YYYY, YYYY


2. WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT

Article 13 Residence rights says:
[insert quote 1]
[insert quote 2]

Article 15 Residence rights:
[insert quote 1]
[insert quote 2]

Article 18 Issuance of residence documents:
[insert quote 1]
[insert quote 2]

3. ERRORS OF LAW

1.) FtT judge X did not consider all the relevant facts and circumstances of my application. The judge failed to recognise the rights afforded to me under the Withdrawal Agreement as the family member of an EU citizen. The rights include the following:

a.) The right to permanent residence after five years

b.) The right to help from the Home Office in making an application. The Home Office never considered that I was eligible under the EU rules.

c.) The right to be considered a 'family member' as defined by Article 9 and within scope of Article 10

2.) Article 18(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement entitles me to challenge the legality of the Immigration Rules (Appendix EU). The legality of the Home Office's position on treating Appendix FM as a disqualifier is pending judicial review in the case of Akinsanya v SSHD. It is premature to conclude the Home Office's position is lawful.

3.) The FtT judge did not conduct a balancing exercise under Article 8 ECHR or consider if the Home Office's refusal was proportionate under Article 18(1)(r) of the Withdrawal Agreement. As a UK resident since 2010, it is disproportionate to expect me to remain under Appendix FM until 20XX.

4.) The FtT judge did not engage with my arguments around discrimination. Over 90% of Zambrano carers were refused settlement. No other category came close to this refusal rate.

5.) The purpose of Article 18 is to establish if I met the residence requriments based on meeting the conditions of Title 2. The judge did not consider if I met the conditions.

[marcidevpal]

Another quick point:

Even if the Home Office didn't realise you are a family member when they were processing your Zambrano EUSS application, they have now seen your skeleton argument. They no know.

They should have gotten in touch by now to work with you. There is no excuse. The Withdrawal Agreement tells them to help you.

You may want to consider sending them an email and asking them to consider your application again, only under the family member criteria. You shouldn't have to formally apply again.

[marcidevpal]

If I were you, I would send a super polite email to the Home Office asking them to work with you to resolve the situation.

If they refused to work with you, I would open a complaint with the IMA (Independent Monitoring Authority) and send a copy of the refusal to your next judge.

https://ima-citizensrights.org.uk/compl ... -complain/

[marcidevpal]

Forgot. I have another point.

Although your judge dismissed your appeal, I think I read that he made a finding of fact.

I think your judge AGREES you were in the UK on a residence card as a family member of an EU national.

The judge also agrees you lived in the UK for 5 years under this category.

If so, the Withdrawal Agreement is clear that you deserve permanent residence.

The Home Office would be silly to make you go through the appeals process.

So, your judge failed to make all the relevant findings of fact. But he did make a few important ones.

[Wishfulgirl]

Forgot. I have another point.

Although your judge dismissed your appeal, I think I read that he made a finding of fact.

I think your judge AGREES you were in the UK on a residence card as a family member of an EU national.

The judge also agrees you lived in the UK for 5 years under this category.

If so, the Withdrawal Agreement is clear that you deserve permanent residence.

The Home Office would be silly to make you go through the appeals process.

So, your judge failed to make all the relevant findings of fact. But he did make a few important ones.

He has indeed. The Judge based his consideration around that of the Zambrano refusal and the reason for the appeal. My concern is, when I make a further appeal to the Upper Tribunal pointing the Error of Law, which is not exactly Zambrano focused. Won’t they say the argument highlighted have no relevance to the Zambrano refusal case I challenged at the court of appeal.

Isn’t this something the Home Office could potentially use to further make an Appeal against me should I let’s say win at the Upper Tribunal.

Will merely pointing out the ERROS of law be enough to challenge the dismissed appeal? even though the errors ( ( Other than human rights ) aren’t directly linked to Zambrano refusal itself. I really hope I’m not confusing you, and I apologize wholeheartedly if I do. I was just gathering my thoughts. I trust your opinion solely I was just looking at it from other points. Especially considering Home Office will be doing just that.

I do intend to appeal it, I mean I have nothing to lose at this point. How does the upper tribunal process works, is it another year of waiting?

[marcidevpal]

I am sure a lot of people have your questions.

An application for permission to appeal is about listing all the errors of law that your judge made.

Judges have a lot of power. They can take a step back and look at the situation in total. You are appealing a decision under EUSS. You are not appealing a Zambrano refusal.

It is important for you to put quotes from the Withdrawal Agreement. Under normal visa applications, the applicant is responsible for doing everything right. Under EUSS, you don't have to show you did everything right.

The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't want people to get caught up on things like which form was completed. It wants the Home Office to look at who you are in total and help you. The judges have to look at the legality of the decision, whether the Home Office considered all relevant facts and whether the decision was proportionate. You can argue that your judge committed errors of law in all three respects.

Your judge focused on the Zambrano question because he focused on the refusal letter. He didn't take the Withdrawal Agreement into account.

Your next judge needs to understand the Withdrawal Agreement in order to do that for the EUSS appeals.

If the next judge agrees that the Home Office didn't help you, then they can agree with your EUSS refusal decision was wrong.

Your submissions shouldn't just be "I am a Zambrano carer". You have two parts to your submissions. You have submissions around your family member status and submissions around your Zambrano status.

You probably don't want to say much around the Zambrano argument given that Akinsanya is filing a judicial review. I would just point out to the next judge that the argument put forward by your judge is the subject of Akinsanya's judicial review.

There is a new rule that makes it really hard to appeal if anyone loses at the Upper Tribunal. Whoever wins at the next stage is likely to win overall.

[Wishfulgirl]

I am sure a lot of people have your questions.

An application for permission to appeal is about listing all the errors of law that your judge made.

Judges have a lot of power. They can take a step back and look at the situation in total. You are appealing a decision under EUSS. You are not appealing a Zambrano refusal.

It is important for you to put quotes from the Withdrawal Agreement. Under normal visa applications, the applicant is responsible for doing everything right. Under EUSS, you don't have to show you did everything right.

The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't want people to get caught up on things like which form was completed. It wants the Home Office to look at who you are in total and help you. The judges have to look at the legality of the decision, whether the Home Office considered all relevant facts and whether the decision was proportionate. You can argue that your judge committed errors of law in all three respects.

Your judge focused on the Zambrano question because he focused on the refusal letter. He didn't take the Withdrawal Agreement into account.

Your next judge needs to understand the Withdrawal Agreement in order to do that for the EUSS appeals.

If the next judge agrees that the Home Office didn't help you, then they can agree with your EUSS refusal decision was wrong.

Your submissions shouldn't just be "I am a Zambrano carer". You have two parts to your submissions. You have submissions around your family member status and submissions around your Zambrano status.

You probably don't want to say much around the Zambrano argument given that Akinsanya is filing a judicial review. I would just point out to the next judge that the argument put forward by your judge is the subject of Akinsanya's judicial review.

There is a new rule that makes it really hard to appeal if anyone loses at the Upper Tribunal. Whoever wins at the next stage is likely to win overall.

Thank you very much for this information. I’ll start preparing the relevant information.

[Wishfulgirl]

I am sure a lot of people have your questions.

An application for permission to appeal is about listing all the errors of law that your judge made.

Judges have a lot of power. They can take a step back and look at the situation in total. You are appealing a decision under EUSS. You are not appealing a Zambrano refusal.

It is important for you to put quotes from the Withdrawal Agreement. Under normal visa applications, the applicant is responsible for doing everything right. Under EUSS, you don't have to show you did everything right.

The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't want people to get caught up on things like which form was completed. It wants the Home Office to look at who you are in total and help you. The judges have to look at the legality of the decision, whether the Home Office considered all relevant facts and whether the decision was proportionate. You can argue that your judge committed errors of law in all three respects.

Your judge focused on the Zambrano question because he focused on the refusal letter. He didn't take the Withdrawal Agreement into account.

Your next judge needs to understand the Withdrawal Agreement in order to do that for the EUSS appeals.

If the next judge agrees that the Home Office didn't help you, then they can agree with your EUSS refusal decision was wrong.

Your submissions shouldn't just be "I am a Zambrano carer". You have two parts to your submissions. You have submissions around your family member status and submissions around your Zambrano status.

You probably don't want to say much around the Zambrano argument given that Akinsanya is filing a judicial review. I would just point out to the next judge that the argument put forward by your judge is the subject of Akinsanya's judicial review.

There is a new rule that makes it really hard to appeal if anyone loses at the Upper Tribunal. Whoever wins at the next stage is likely to win overall.

Hey Marcidevpal,

Just wanted to know the standard procedure for appealing. I don’t have much experience with this similar to the first appeal I made previously.

Is it just the IAFT-4 I need to fill in for now and send it & wait to see if another First Tier Tribunal judge accept my reasons?

Section C on the IAFT-4 mentioned “ state reason for appealing/please state what errors of law ?

Is this all I need to fill in for now and send it Or I’ll need all the additional information along with this form?

[marcidevpal]

Is it just the IAFT-4 I need to fill in for now and send it & wait to see if another First Tier Tribunal judge accept my reasons? Section C on the IAFT-4 mentioned “ state reason for appealing/please state what errors of law ?

Hi Wishfulgirl,

Yes, you complete the IATF-4 with the details. I can't remember how big the box is. You can put all of your reasons in there. I prefer to say something like this in the box, "The attached document outlines my reasons for appealling."

I then create a Word document and put my reasons there. You are going to keep updating your Word document so that could be separate from the IATF-4. You could do your IATF-4 today easily and have it ready to go. That way, you can spend the rest of the time focusing on your word document.

[marcidevpal]

Hi Wishfulgirl,

Regarding your email to the Home Office, you may want to explain the following:

1.) Eventhough you applied as a Zambrano carer, you are also a family member who completed 5 years residence. Since you obtained the right to permanent residence, your right has not ended.

2.) Highlight the findings of fact made by your FtT judge. Namely, the fact that he accepted you are a family member and a Zambrano carer. He also accepted the fact that you have resided continuously in the UK since YYYY.

3.) The fact that the WA gives family members the right to permanent residence after five years and that the right can not be taken away unless the applicant leaves the UK for 5 years.

4.) The fact that Title 2, Chapter 1, Article 18 of the Withdrawal Agreement says the host country must help applicants to prove their eligibility and to avoid any errors or omissions in their applications and give applicants the opportunity to furnish supplementary evidence and to correct any deficiencies, errors or omissions.

5.) You could tell them that if they do not respond and agree to work with you within X days, you will appeal the decision and ask for costs.

[marcidevpal]

Correction to #3

3.) The fact that Title 2, Chapter 1, Article 15 of the WA gives family members the right to permanent residence after five years and says that the right can not be taken away unless the applicant leaves the UK for 5 years.

[marcidevpal]

ARTICLE 16 - Accumulation of periods

Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals, and their respective family members,

who before the end of the transition period resided legally in the host State in accordance with the conditions of Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC for a period of less than 5 years,

shall have the right to acquire the right to reside permanently under the conditions set out in Article 15 of this Agreement once they have completed the necessary periods of residence.

Periods of legal residence or work in accordance with Union law before and after the end of the transition period shall be included in the calculation of the qualifying period necessary for acquisition of the right of permanent residence.