refused EEA3

[hassam]

hallo ,
I have an question
today I have received refusal for EEA3 . The refusal is because my husband has been between 5 years period on jobseekers for more than 6 months and they can only accept 6 months. I am very confuse because we dont know what to do or when we can apply again or do we need to wait again another five years? thank you very much for your hepl
Miriam.

[John]

If you applied using form EEA3, why are your husband's periods of unemployment important? Surely to get Permanent Residence it will be because of how you have been exercising Treaty Rights.

[stanik]

Hi everyone! Just got refusal of EEA3.. reason (same as above) beeing on JSA for more than 6 months.. - as I know person is treated as Worker if worked in UK for more than 1 year! Of course I did! a lot more than a year and was dissmised (so sad) - and I dont undertsant why Home Office indicated me as jobseeker who cant be unemployed for more than 6 monts??! and also they stated I cant claim JSA as it is public funds!

IS TRUE?? as I know not - I have reg certif. I worked al lot.. and by goverment's rules must register with Job Centre if I am unemployed.. when you are with JC you get JSA!!! what is the problem??
Why HO refused my application??

I have same right as British! and HO officially breach my rights! Any help? Any good solicitor? to help resolve the situtation? Thanks

[Obie]

Hi everyone! Just got refusal of EEA3.. reason (same as above) beeing on JSA for more than 6 months.. - as I know person is treated as Worker if worked in UK for more than 1 year! Of course I did! a lot more than a year and was dissmised (so sad) - and I dont undertsant why Home Office indicated me as jobseeker who cant be unemployed for more than 6 monts??! and also they stated I cant claim JSA as it is public funds!

IS TRUE?? as I know not - I have reg certif. I worked al lot.. and by goverment's rules must register with Job Centre if I am unemployed.. when you are with JC you get JSA!!! what is the problem??
Why HO refused my application??

I have same right as British! and HO officially breach my rights! Any help? Any good solicitor? to help resolve the situtation? Thanks

If you got right of appeal and have you exercised it? Have you got proof that after 6 months you were still searching for work, and had a reasonable chance of securing employment?

You may have a basis under article 21 of the treaty, provided you can show you were not an unreasonable burden to the UK purse.

There may be strong basis to challenge this decision.

[stanik]

Hi everyone! Just got refusal of EEA3.. reason (same as above) beeing on JSA for more than 6 months.. - as I know person is treated as Worker if worked in UK for more than 1 year! Of course I did! a lot more than a year and was dissmised (so sad) - and I dont undertsant why Home Office indicated me as jobseeker who cant be unemployed for more than 6 monts??! and also they stated I cant claim JSA as it is public funds!

IS TRUE?? as I know not - I have reg certif. I worked al lot.. and by goverment's rules must register with Job Centre if I am unemployed.. when you are with JC you get JSA!!! what is the problem??
Why HO refused my application??

I have same right as British! and HO officially breach my rights! Any help? Any good solicitor? to help resolve the situtation? Thanks

If you got right of appeal and have you exercised it? Have you got proof that after 6 months you were still searching for work, and had a reasonable chance of securing employment?

You may have a basis under article 21 of the treaty, provided you can show you were not an unreasonable burden to the UK purse.

There may be strong basis to challenge this decision.

I'm going to appeal. I was employed for one year or more before becoming unemployed - that mean i'm a worker - this is one proof. Also when applied for JSA I passed Habbitual Resdinet Test - i'm not unreasonable burden to the UK purse - second proof.
Also when you are with job centre and receive JSA you must sign on and show you are looking for job - if I still get JSA - that mean I'm still looking for work - third proof.
Could it help to defend me against their dicision?

[Obie]

You have few hurdles to overcome.

1. Yes you are right, the fact that you were employed for a year or more means you can retain your status as worker, provided
- You were involuntarily unemployed
- You are registered with the Job centre.

Were you voluntarily or involuntarily unemployed?

2. The EEA regulation, as opposed to the directive, does not differenciate between people who were employed for a year or less. They require that the length of unemployment for both categories should not exceed 6 months, or these people should show they have a reasonable change of securing employment if it exceeded 6 months.

I believe it is contrary to the requirement of the directive, which differentiate between these two categories.

Yes you are right, people who have been employed for a year before they were made involuntarily unemployed, through redundancy, should not be required to show after 6 months that that they have a realistic chance of securing employment. I believe this is clearly wrong.

You have a though but winnable fight ahead of you, and i wish you all the success for the future.

Please note that it is important you get this issue resolved, as it will affect you hugely in future, in applying for benefits, for which the right to reside test is require, or should you wish to apply or sponsor, relatives from overseas.

[stanik]

You have few hurdles to overcome.

1. Yes you are right, the fact that you were employed for a year or more means you can retain your status as worker, provided
- You were involuntarily employed
- You are registered with the Job centre.

Were you voluntarily or involuntarily employed?

2. The EEA regulation, as opposed to the directive, does not differenciate between people who were employed for a year or less. They require that the length of unemployment for both categories should not exceed 6 months, or these people should show they have a reasonable change of securing employment if it exceeded 6 months.

I believe it is contrary to the requirement of the directive, which differentiate between these two categories.

Yes you are right, people who have been employed for a year before they were made involuntarily unemployed, through redundancy, should not be required to show after 6 months that that they have a realistic chance of securing employment. I believe this is clearly wrong.

You have a though but winnable fight ahead of you, and i wish you all the success for the future.

Please note that it is important you get this issue resolved, as it will affect you hugely in future, in applying for benefits, for which the right to reside test is require, or should you wish to apply or sponsor, relatives from overseas.

1. At first one did you mean involuntarily UNemployed? - yes I was dismissed and I made a complaint to employment tribunal..

[Obie]

Yes you are correct, i meant involuntarily unemployed.

According to the EEA regulation 2006, being involuntarily employed, is not the end of the matter. You will only be able to retain your worker status for 6 months, and after that period, you have to show that you have a good chance of seeking employment, if you have not found one by then.

[EUsmileWEallsmile]

What did the refusal letter actually say?

[stanik]

What did the refusal letter actually say?

Dear Mr...

On (date) 2011 you applied for document certifying your permanent residence in the United Kingdom.
An official has considered your application on behalf of the Secretary of State.

In support of your application you have provided a (EU) passport, Worker Registration Scheme card and certificates dated (Sep06, Mar07, Jun07), wages slips, employers letters and Jobcentreplus letter.
To qualify for the grant of permanent residence, documentation must be provided confirming the identity of the EEA national and that treaty rights have been exercised in accordance with Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 for continuous 5 year period.
Whilst you have provided documentation in the form of wages slips and employers letters confirming that you were in employment between August 2006 and January 2010, this evidence does not confirm that you have exercised treaty rights for the 5 year qualifying period.
You have also supplied a letter from Jobcentreplus dated (Aug11) regarding the rate of Jobseeker Allowance you have been receiving since (Jan10). As outlined under Regulations 6(2) of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006, a jobseeker is defined as a person who has been unemployed for no more than 6 months. Your own search employment has far exceed this timeframe. Furthermore, as Jobseekers Allowance is also classified as a public fund, you have failed to demonstrate that you are able to support yourself without resources to the social assistance system of the United Kingdom.
You have failed to provide evidence that you are a qualified person as defined under the 2006 Regulations and it has therefore been decided to refuse to issue the confirmation you seek with reference to Regulation 15(1)(a) of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006.
In making the decision to refuse you application, consideration has been given to the following: EEA form, passport, WRS card and certificates, Wage slips, Letters.
As an EEA national you are not required to leave the United Kingdom as a result of this decision.
****

by the way I also provided Registration Certificate.. why they didn't mention this..

[stanik]

Yes you are correct, i meant involuntarily unemployed.

According to the EEA regulation 2006, being involuntarily employed, is not the end of the matter. You will only be able to retain your worker status for 6 months, and after that period, you have to show that you have a good chance of seeking employment, if you have not found one by then.

EEA reg 2006 says:
6.(2)(b) he is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after having been employed in the
United Kingdom, provided that he has registered as a jobseeker with the relevant
employment office and—
(i) he was employed for one year or more before becoming unemployed;
(ii) he has been unemployed for no more than six months; or
(iii) he can provide evidence that he is seeking employment in the United Kingdom and
has a genuine chance of being engaged;

and you should have i or ii or iii - so I have (i) and doesnt matter hol long im unnemployed..

[Obie]

You may be excused for thinking the semi colon between i and ii indicates they are mutually exclusive, however that is not the case, and the courts have not been interpreting it that way so far. The fact that there is an (or) between ii and iii, indicates that it is the interpretation of the UKBA, that the person claiming rights under this regulation has to meet the 1 condition and either the 2 or 3 condition.

[stanik]

You may be excused for thinking the semi colon between i and ii indicates they are mutually exclusive, however that is not the case, and the courts have not been interpreting it that way so far. The fact that there is an (or) between ii and iii, indicates that it is the interpretation of the UKBA, that the person claiming rights under this regulation has to meet the 1 condition and either the 2 or 3 condition.

Ok. But would you agree that here (in example), in semi colons between (a) and (e) is (or) or (and)? Or it indicates that the person claiming rights under this regulation has to meet the a,b,c conditions and either the c or d condition. Sounds silly isn't it?

Example:
“Qualified personâ€

[Obie]

This Compliance studies states that i , ii and iii are disjunctive, which is what i believe it should be. In several cases i have seen, the UKBA have argued it is cumulative as opposed to alternative or disjunctive. The directive and the case law indicates they are two different categories of beneficiaries, and they should be addressed differently. I believe you have a good case, but be prepared for a bit of fight.

Let me know when the appeal is coming up, and if i am available, i may be able to offer assistance.

You are also right to say that Semi Colon by definition, separate two independently linked categories, therefore they should be alternative, but the UKBA have argued in court, and so far some judges have agreed with them that they are right.

[stanik]

This Compliance studies states that i , ii and iii are disjunctive, which is what i believe it should be. In several cases i have seen, the UKBA have argued it is cumulative as opposed to alternative or disjunctive. The directive and the case law indicates they are two different categories of beneficiaries, and they should be addressed differently. I believe you have a good case, but be prepared for a bit of fight.

Let me know when the appeal is coming up, and if i am available, i may be able to offer assistance.

You are also right to say that Semi Colon by definition, separate two independently linked categories, therefore they should be alternative, but the UKBA have argued in court, and so far some judges have agreed with them that they are right.

Thanks a lot! I will fight!
Also, could you please advise, why Hme Office tells me that I can't receive JSA and should help my self with finance? As I know EEA can't be burden to social funds in first year of being in UK, but thereafter when received REG. CERT. can get benefits. Why after all checkings from DWP, DWP gives benefits if you eligible, but HO strictly resists to allow it? Being jobseeker you must receive JSA..